LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



®(rap, ©tqqjrig^ If u, 

sheif ._.fcM.ao&3 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 





o^ 




/ 



"SALUS POPULI SUPREMA LEX." 

PRACTICAL 

PROHIBITION 

By V. W. GRUBBS, Esq., 

OF THE GREENVILLE (TEXAS) BAR, 



CONTAINING A PLAIN, PRACTICAL DISCUSSION OF THE CAUSES 
AND EFFECTS OF INTEMPERANCE AND DRUNKENNESS, AND 
THE MOST EFFECTUAL REMEDIES THEREFOR. INCLUDING 
EARLY TRAINING, PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION, BOTH 
LOCAL AND GENERAL, WITH AN APPENDIX GIVING 
A SYNOPSIS OF THE PROHIBITORY LEGISLA- 
TION AND LICENSE LAWS OE THE SEV>-— "~ 
ERAL STATES OF THE UNION; ALSO, A 
*V \. BRIEF SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR, -y^ 



WRITTEN BY HIMSELF. 



J 3^0S- ' 



"I would not espouse either side of an important question if the reasons 
prompting my course would not bear a faithful and impartial presentation in 
any form whatever, and should I find them faulty and unfounded in princi- 
ple, upon thorough investigation, I would abandon my position at once. I 
am going to publish a book on ' Practical Prohibitton' and scatter it broad 
cast over Texas, regardless of anybody's 'doubts as to its wisdom and pro- 
priety at this time.' I would publish it though I knew that I would never 
receive a cent in return for the outlay. Please say to your readers that the 
work will appear on the 1st day of June next, even though I should be forced 
to dispose of the entire edition by gratuituous distribution." — [Author's Let- 
ter to the Paris Daily News, March 29, 1887. 



T. C. Johnson & Co., Booksellers & Stationers, 

GREENVILLE, TEXAS. 



\n s"\ 






Copyright, 1887, by the Author. 



PRESS OF EUGENE VON BOECKMANN, AUSTIN, TEXAS. 



DEDICATION. 



To Prof. William Hudson, A. M., of Trinity University, as 
a token of rny high appreciation of his varied and extensive 
learning, the innate goodness of his simple heart, and of my 
lasting gratitude for the unselfish and disinterested kindness 
bestowed during the halcyon days of my college life, this 
book is respectfully inscribed by The Author. 



CONTENTS. 



SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR'S LIFE 6 

CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

Popular Errors and Difficulties in the Way of Reform.. . 27 
CHAPTER II. 

CAUSES OF DRUNKENNESS. 

Hereditary — Defects in Training Children's Appetites and 
Impulses — Bad Examples — Curiosity — Indiscrimi- 
nate Social Treating — Fashion's Power — Social Con- 
dition of the Country 41 

CHAPTER III. 

EFFECTS OF RRUNKENNESS. 

Physical, Moral and Social 59 

CHAPTER IV. 

REMEDIER FOR THE EVIL. 

Early Training — Parental Influence — Good Example- 
Woman's Freedom from the Vice — Her Special 
Work 66 

CHAPTERS V & VI. 

REMEDIES INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATION. 

The Church and its Ministry — The Sunday School .... 81 
Individual Effort — Organized Effort 88 

CHAPTERS VI, VII, VIII & IX. 

PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 

Local Option 100 

State Prohibition — General Discussion of the Subject. . . 121 
Open Letter from D. B. Culberson 128 



CONTENTS. 



Constitutional View — Prohibition and the Democratic 
Party — The Loss of Revenue and Destruction of 
Property — Importation of Liquor— An Open Letter 

Dissected. . 151 

Letter from John H. Reagan 150 

Letter from B. H. Carroll , 153 

Review of the Anti-Prohibition Platform 164 

CHAPTER X. 

NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 

General Discussion — Senator Blai'rs Speech — General 
Considerations — Review of Progress during the last 
Century — Forms which Legislation has Taken — The 
Situation and Requirements — Recapitulation — Im- 
portance of Local Option Movements — Action 171 

CHAPTER XL 

THE LICENSE SYSTEM. 

High License — Low License — Free Trade in Whisky — 

.Dr. Talmage on License . , 206 

CHAPTERS XII & XIII. 

Prohibition and the Bible 218 

Prohibition and Natural Laws 230 

CHAPTER XIV. 

RROHIBITION AND THE PRESS. 

The Daily and Weekly Papers — Anti-Prohibition Speak- 
ers and Leaders — Cheering Words to the Temper- 
ance Workers , 241 

APPENDIX 263 

Maine 265 

Iowa t . 271 

Kansas 275 

Ohio 282 

Indiana .• 288 

Illinois 302 

Massachusetts 307 

Connecticut 318 



CONTENTS. 



Rhode Island 320 

Vermont . . 321 

New Hampshire 322-370 

New Jersey 322 

Pennsylvania 322 

New York 323 

Maryland , 328 

Wisconsin 332 

Virginia 347 

West Virginia 349 

Kentucky 352 

Tennessee 355 

North Carolina 357 

South Carolina 358 

Louisiana 361 

Delaware 363 

Georgia , 363 

Alabama 364 

Arkansas 364 

Mississippi 365 

Florida 365 

Michigan 366 

California 367 

Colorado 369 

Oregon 370 

Nevada 371 

Nebraska 371 

Minnesota 372 

Missouri 373 

Texas — Letter from Attorney-General J. S. Hogg. . . 373 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 381 

CONCLUSION 382 



PEEFAOE. 

Sometime in the fall of 1886 I took up a notion that I 
would write for some paper that would condescend to publish 
them, a series of articles on Practical Prohibition. Being a 
regular subscriber of the Texas Observei', a religious week- 
ly published at Mexia, in this State, and knowing well the 
liberal sentiments of its able editor upon the question of pro- 
hibition, I requested him to grant me the use of his columns 
for the purposes stated. At that time I hoped to be able to 
exhaust the subject, as far reaching and extensive in its scope 
as it is, in a half dozen articles. My principal object in 
writing them has been, to awaken a more calm and unpreju- 
diced investigation of the subject in the minds of our people, 
than has characterized the arguments going the rounds of the 
press, and the vindictive discourses of a large number of 
temperance lecturers, who have long been infesting the 
country and, in many instances, doing incalulable injury to 
the cause of prohibition ; also to get our people to be more 
temperate on the subject in private conversation, and to dis- 
cuss its merits and demerits with more tolerance and less vin- 
dictiveness. I did not dream of writing or publishing a book 
devoted to the subject of Practical Prohibition, at the time 
I began with the series, nor for a long time thereafter. Cer- 
tain friends of mine, however, whose attention had been at- 
tracted by the arguments contained in the series, approached 
me with the flattering request that I cause them to be com- 
piled and printed for general circulation in pamphlet form, 
and I had about decided to act up'on the suggestion. A 
short time ago Mr. Luther Benson, the well-known lecturer. 
when on his tour through the northern counties of the State. 



PREFACE. 



spent a few days lecturing in Greenville, and while here was 
the guest of the writer. While at my house his attention was 
called to the series, and, as I had carefully preserved a file 
of the papers containing them, he took upon himself the trou- 
ble to read them in their order. He at once declared that he 
thoroughly and unreservedly endorsed every line they con- 
tained, and urged me to prepare them for publication without 
delay, and suggested that it would be more satisfactory to 
have them published in a more durable form than the one in 
which I had about decided to give them to the public. Up- 
on his repeated assurance that he would aid me in every way 
possible in the matter of their distribution and sale so that I 
might suffer no serious loss by the venture, I decided 
that I would begin at ance the preparation of the 
work for the press. The idea of personal gam has never en- 
tered my mind in the publication of the work, and if the 
good people of Texas and other parts of the country should 
think the effort worthy of their favor, I shall be more than 
satisfied if I am able to come out even on the enterprise. The 
great cause of prohibition to which the book is devoted is 
entirely welcome to the long hours of patient study and labor 
I have given to its pages, which contain the series of articles 
contributed to the Observer, corrected and enlarged. In 
the preperation of the work for the press I have received 
valuable aid from my young friend Earle Edmundson Esq., 
a student of law in my office. I am also indebted to Mr. 
Sam. H. Dixon of Austin, Tex., Author of "The Poets and 
Poetry of Texas" for his kindly supervision of the typographi- 
cal arrangement and other matters incident to the publication 
of the work. I have been materially aided by the timely sug- 
gestion of others in the revision and correction of the manu- 
script for the press. 

V. W. Grubbs. 
Greenville,. Tex., June ist, 1887. 



SKETCH OF THE AUTHOE'S LIFE. 



Two reasons prompt me to accompany this volume with a 
brief history of the life of its author. First, I am a compar- 
ative stranger to the reading public, and a natural curiosity 
on the part of my readers will lead them to an inquiry into 
my antecedents, if I am supposed to have any \ second, 
I hope thereby to encourage the young men of my State, 
whose opportunities are meager and whose surroundings 
inauspicious and unfavorable, to push forward with energy 
and perseverance in their efforts to succeed in life : to inspire 
them with renewed hope and self-confidence in their struggles 
with adversity, to make themselves useful in the world. It 
may be, too, that the secret wooings of vanity and conceit 
have contributed their shares in due season to urge me to 
speak, as I am going to do of my varied life and experience. 
However that may be, I am quite certain that the great desire 
of my heart is, to accomplish some good by giving the ac- 
count, which, in the main, I promise, shall be true. Many 
things which have happened and many of the errors into 
which I have fallen, and which it would be of no possible ben- 
efit to my readers to know, I shall omit. They are ever too 
fresh in my own memory, and I would to God, that I could 
forget them, as they have long since served their purposes. 

I am the son of William Grubbs, now deceased, and 
was born in Calloway county, Kentucky, on the morning 



10 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

of the first day of May, A. D., 1848* My father's ancestors 
were from Virginia. My paternal grandfather was of Irish 
descent, and my grandmother was of a Scotch family by the 
name of Duncan. My mother's name before her marriage with 
my father was Anne Utley Wade. My maternal grandfather, 
Hon, Vincent A. Wade, after whom I was named, was a 
man of some political prominence in his county, having been 
frequently elected a member of the Kentucky Legislature. He 
was descended, I think, from the Welsh. My maternal grand- 
mother was an Utley, and was born near Raleigh, N. C; 
moved thence to Tennessee and was there married to my 
grandfather, who, in an early day, moved to Kentucky. She 
was one of the noblest and greatest women I have known, 
and to her precepts and courageous example in the great 
battles of life, I owe perhaps, more of what little success 
I have attained than to the influence of any other person, my 
own mother not excepted. My grandfather Wade, having 
been completely broken up by politics and security debts, 
emigrated to Texas in the early settlement of the State and 
located near what is now known as the town of Crandall in 
the western portion of Kaufman county, where he opened up 
a small farm, and soon afterwards died, leaving my heroic 
grandmother, Mrs. Phoebe Wade, to raise a large family 
of children, nearly all boys, the oldest being not over sixteen 
years of age at the time of his father's untimely death ; the 
youngest, a daughter, now Mrs. Lafayette Murphy, being an 
infant. Our family remained in Kentucky, but was preparing 
to follow at the time of my birth, when a misfortune befell 
my father which made him a cripple for life. 

My mother's father dying about the same time, the re- 
moval was prevented. The premature death of my father, 
in 1855, made it necessary for my mother, with her chil- 
dren, consisting of three boys and two girls, the oldest, my 
sister Jane being then abont ten years of age, to move to 



SKETCH OF THE AUTHORS LIFE. II 

Texas and seek the aid and protection of her mother and 
her brothers, one of whom, my Uncle Barksdale, usually 
called "Baz," Wade coming back to Kentucky to wind up the 
business of my father's little estate, and move us to Texas. 
He was, indeed, a noble specimen of intellectual and physi- 
cal manhood, the oldest and grandest of that pioneer family, 
a fit person in every respect, to be the couselor of his 
widowed mother, and the guardian and protector of the 
younger members of the family. He, with his two younger 
brothers and my oldest sister died of an epidemic about the 
same time, two of them dying the same day. My mother was 
an invalid and had been for years. Her nervous system had 
been completely shattered, and this awful calamity seemed 
more than she could bear. It appeared for a long time that 
her mind would give way, under the weight of the affliction in 
spite of every effort to console her. But she finally re- 
covered, and the climate of Texas and the absence of trouble 
almost entirely restored to their normal condition her 
shattered nervous centres. In 1858 she was married to Mr. 
R. O. Anthony, and we moved to his home in Ellis county, 
about twelve miles east of Waxahachie, where we remained 
until the year 1862, returning to Kaufman county. Of that 
union there were born two sons and a daughter who have 
been to me as my own brothers and sisters. 

My stepfather has been to me more than an ordinary fath- 
er. No nobler or kinder-hearted man, with all of his pecu- 
liarities, was ever permitted to breathe the breath of life. His 
generosity and unselfishness, his patience in affliction, which 
has been constant and severe, often becoming dangerous, se- 
rious, and distressing, have been, at all times, remarkable. 
While he never, at any time, so far as I remember, denied me 
a favor that he was in the leastwise able to confer, his means 
were never sufficient to keep the others of the family up and 
justify him in contributing much, if anything, to my educa- 



12 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

tion. Indeed, I had not the heart to ask or to receive it when 
I saw and realized the accumulated necessities of the family.*" 
My mother and my two brothers, Thueston and William., 
and my sister Laura, now Mrs. McSween, all three of whom 
are now living near the old homestead, and surrrounded by 
happy and interesting families, were, at all times, ready to da 
anything in their power to aid me in my struggles for an edu- 
cation, even to the denial of themselves the ordinary comforts 
and necessaries of life. My half-brothers and sister, Sam, 
now deceased, Joseph, and Jennie Anthony, (now Mrs. S, W. 
Roberts, of Kaufman,) were equally selfsacriflcing, and my feel- 
ings of gratitude towards them all increase and grow stronger 
as the years pass away. I cannot take time to narrate the or- 
dinary incidents of my wild life from the days of my removal 
to Texas, in 1855, until I arrived at the age of seventeen, 
which was about the close of the civil war. The greater part 
of the time after I became large enough to ride a Spanish 
pony was spent on the broad prairies as a cow-driver or herd- 
er of horses. My school days had been few; my education 
had been badly neglected. I could ride the wildest and most 
dangerous horse that roamed the prairies, if I could keep him 
still long enough to mount him. I delighted in the sport, al- 
though it kept my poor mother dying from uneasiness, and 
often would she try to dissuade me from going into the dan- 
ger. But my chief ambition seemed to be to acquire the rep- 
utation of the best rider in all that section of the country, and 
in that I was reasonably successful. All on earth I had or 
cared to have, was a horse, saddle and bridle. The idea of 
the accumulation of property, or of obtaining an education,, 
much less qualifying myself for a learned profession, never 



* Since the above was written my step-father has passed over the dark 
river. He died at his home near Crandall, in Kaufman county, on the 3d 
day of April, 1887, and now sleeps in the Kaufman Cemetery beside his 
oldest son, Samuel R. Anthony, who died at the Agricultural and Mechan- 
ical College near Bryan Texas, on the 22nd day of November, 1881. 



SKETCH OF THE AUTHORS LIFE. 1 3 



once flitted across my imagination. I concluded in the fall 
of 1865 that I would go back to Kentucky on a visit, and to 
gather up the fragments of the proceeds of our old homestead 
and bring them to Texas. To those people up there I was a 
great curiosity, and I rather enjoyed the distinction. I started 
home in February of the following year with about two hund- 
red dollars in gold in my pocket, the accumulated rents ot the 
old family homestead. Took a steamboat at Paducah and in 
due time landed in New Orleans. I was good picking for the 
sharpers, and, had it not been for a kind and fatherly old gen- 
tleman, a Mr. Husbands, who then lived in Hunt county, Texas, 
with whom I had accidentally become acquainted, I should 
have been fleeced before I could have possibly gotten away 
from the city. But I finally made it home, and from that 
good day until the present, I have been satisfied with Texas. 

Nothing could have more effectually calmed every feeling 
of discontent than that wild goose chase to Kentucky. It gave 
me a lasting impression of my own ignorance, and also of the 
fact that my manner of life was anything but conducive to the 
development of my manhood and the accomplishment of any 
noble purpose of my life; so I set about at once to obtain a 
good, practical education; sold my horse, saddle, and bridle, 
and every hoof of cattle, and all other property that had ac- 
cidentally fallen into my hands, and entered a high school at 
Kaufman, where I was able, by the kindness of my friends, to 
remain for two sessions. At the end of that time I had not a 
dollars worth of property on earth. While there I was taken 
notice of by Judge Green J. Clark, and he seemed to feel a 
deep and abiding interest in my future. He called me into 
his law office one day and gave me the first idea I ever had 
of making a lawyer out of myself. His kindly words of en- 
couragement sank deep into my heart. The brief history he 
gave me of his own life and its struggles made a lasting im- 
pression upon my mind, and I remember every word he spoke 



14 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

to me on that occasion as well as if it had been yesterday, 
though twenty long years have since passed away. I thought 
over the difficulties in the way, and they arose up before me 
like mountains in the distance, but while they were rising, my 
own resolution grew stronger, and at length I started on my 
long and wearisome journey. I had a good friend in Kauf- 
man, Rev. D. W. Broughton, now a resident of Dallas, who 
advised me to go to Tehuacana and enter the first session of 
the Trinity University, which began in September, 1869. The 
months intervening I had given to teaching and other pur- 
suits, by which I had realized about one hundred and fifty 
dollars, that being every cent I could command at the time I 
entered the college, which was in November of the year 1869. 
It was all gone before the close of the session, although I had 
been quite economical and saving. During the session I had 
made many friends among teachers, pupils, and the good 
people of the town and community. Should I undertake to- 
mention the many acts of kindness and words of encourage- 
ment which were bestowed upon me from the time I entered 
the college till I left it, and to mention the names made so- 
dear to the memory of those happy days, it would require all 
the space set apart for the material intended for this volume. 
When I spoke of leaving school for the purpose of replenish- 
ing my exchequer, there was a positive dissent by every one 
of my teachers, who insisted that I could easily work my way 
through, and that they would all help me to accomplish the 
undertaking. I went home in June, 1870, full of doubt and 
uncertainty as to the course I ought to pursue. I had by that 
time acquired a thirst for knowledge that it seemed impossi- 
ble for me to satisfy or suppress. I spent the entire vaca- 
tion in the hardest, heaviest, and hottest work of my life. I 
took a contract to build a barn for my step-father, and, don- 
ning my old threadbare clothes and broad brimmed hat, I re- 
paired to the woods, where I cut down and hewed the tim- 



SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR'S LIFE. 15 

bers with my own aching arms, hauled them out, and com- 
pleted the work just in time for the opening of the ensuing 
session of the college. 

When I had paid up the old score at home, I had sixteen 
dollars left with which to finish my collegiate education ; but 
by my own work at odd times during the session, and by 
teaching during the vacations, coupled with the unselfish 
kindness of my teachers and the friends by whom I was sur- 
rounded, I was enabled to graduate with some credit and 
honor, on the 12th day of June 1872, after nearly three years of 
assiduous and unremitting application to my studies. I can 
not forbear mentioning the fact that I was on that day 
the recipient of the first gold medal ever bestowed by my lit- 
erary society, which a few weeks before, had been awarded to 
me by a unanimous vote of its members. The society in- 
cluded upon its roll of membership at that time many names 
which have since become prominent in Texas \ a number of 
them who joined in the bestowal of that honor have far out- 
stripped the writer in the race for worldly honors and dis- 
tinction. Their triumphs, and they have been many and 
brilliant, afford me a degree of pleasure and satisfaction that 
could scarcely be surpassed by my own elevation. 

During the latter years of my stay at Tehuacana I was 
specially befriended by a lady, who now lives in Greenville, 
Mrs. Anne Terrell, with whom I boarded, and had it not been 
for her disinterested kindness in not pressing me for my 
board bill, when I could not have possibly paid it, I should 
have been forced to abandon my studies long before the time 
for my graduation. She was ever my friend and my 
sympathizer in time of trouble and despondency. She is true, 
generous and forgiving when a friend — equally positive in her 
dislikes. She is a woman of strong, well denned traits of 
character, and a heart full of kindness and sympathy for those 
whom she deems worthy of her esteem. I owe a debt of lasting 



1 6 PRACTICAL PROHIEITION. 



gratitude to Dr. W. E. Beeson, president of the college at that 
time ; and indeed, I could recall many others to whom I owe 
much for the kindness they were pleased to bestow. But to 
none of whatever class do I owe more than to the man 
to whom this first effort of the author is respectfully dedicated; 
that gifted though eccentric genius, Prof. William Hudson, 
the then principal of the commercial and art departments of 
the University. For patient, untiring industry and for broad 
and far reaching generosity and philanthropy, I have 
never known his equal. He was unkind and ungenerous 
to none but himself. Upon others, often unworthy, he 
lavished his hard earnings, which were usually small, while 
his own necessities and those of his family went unsupplied. 
He still lives to do good and to behold the fruit of his labors, 
in the triumphs of a host of young men and young ladies, 
who have been permitted to share the benefits of his untiring 
efforts in the department over which he so long presided. 
He is now professor of natural science in the same institution; 
and may he be long spared to bless it and its glorious work 
in the education of the young people of Texas. I would like 
to go on with the whole catalogue of teachers and students 
whose memory I love as I love my own life. Dr. Beeson has 
long since passed off the stage of action. Professors Quaite and 
Lowry preceded him. Professors Hudson and Gillespie are 
the only survivors of the faculty. They are growing old and 
infirm, and, in the regular course of nature must soon pass 
away. 

I left college perhaps the most happy and hopeful individ- 
ual who ever entered upon the responsibilities of actual life. 
I was about the close of the last session elected assistant pro- 
fessor in the commercial department of the college, at a sal- 
ary with which I ought to have been satisfied. But before 
the opening of the session in which I was confidently ex 
pected to distinguish myself as a teacher, I fell into a fit of 



SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR'S LIFE. I 7 

despondency which cast an impenetrable gloom over every 
prospect that had hitherto loomed up so brightly before me. 
The very memory of the hopes and aspirations which had lit 
up my path way through college life, seemed to haunt me in 
my waking hours, and to chide and disturb me in my slumber. 
They appeared to me in all the hideous and horrifying 
aspects of so many ghosts that would not " down at my bid- 
ding." I was unfit for business, unfit for pleasure, unfit for 
even the miserable existence I suffered. Had it not been for 
the thought of my mother and my brothers and sisters, and that 
inward dread of the great beyond, it is probable that I would 
shave voluntarily put an end to my joyless, hopeless, miserable 
life. 

"Apart I stalked in joyless misery," 

and determined to give up forever the object for which I had 
studied and return home to live the balance of my days 
in nameless obscurity. I did not know then that the depres- 
sion was caused from a sudden relaxation of the mental 
faculties after a continued strain of so many years to their ut- 
most tension. I could not foresee the end, which I constantly 
dreaded a thousand times worse than the summons of death, 
whose approach I would gladly have welcomed had he 
made his ghastly appearance. It was indeed fortunate that 
I had but a short time before entering college, voluntarily 
made the resolve that I would not drink whisky, otherwise I 
would have in all probability, sought refuge from myself in 
the deadly wine cup ; but, when I contemplated such relief, I 
thought of my resolution, which I would rather die than to 
break ; such had been the sacredness with which I had been 
taught from my youth to regard the force of a resolve volun- 
tarily and deliberately taken upon myself. I verily believe 
that that timely resolution saved me from the snares and 
temptations into which so many thousands have fallen under 



l8 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

like circumstances. I unceremoniously abandoned my posi- 
tion in the college and returned to the humble roof of my 
mother. She understood me better than any one else in the 
broad universe. She had suffered from despondency herself, 
and it was from her that I had inherited the tendency. She 
humored my every fancy, agreed with me in all my folly, and 
left nothing undone that could contribute to the restoration of 
my wonted mental vigor and cheerfulness. She would have 
the boys and girls to get up fishing parties, and, in some way,, 
induce me to go along with them, which I never wanted 
to do. Every day or so I would ride out on the prairie with 
the boys, and drive up the horses and cattle. In a short time 
I was once more myself, but not until after I had spent 
a month or more in Kaufman in business as a bookkeeper 
and salesman. 

As an evidence of my unfitness for such business, I am con- 
strained to relate the following trifling incident, which oc- 
curred a few days after accepting the situation. My employer 
had just bought a large lot of cotton, for a place like Kauf- 
man, forty or fifty bales. He gave me the paint pot and brush,, 
and directed me to go out into the yard and mark and number 
the bales of cotton, giving me the first number, the memoran- 
dum given me on a slip of paper being 'j up,' intending, of 
course, that I should begin with the number 7 and go on con- 
secutively until I reached the last bale. I had studied the 
science and art of lettering while in college, and felt that I 
was specially fitted for this particular work. I worked man- 
fully for more than a half day, and returned feeling like I had 
earned some distinction as a marker of cotton. Imagine the 
disappointment and chagrin of my employer when he went 
out into the yard to ship off his cotton finding every bale 
marked '7 up' in the most artistic letters and figures. But he 
was a kind-hearted man and too mindful of my feelings to say 
what he must have thought of my ignorance and stupidity. 



SKETCH OF THE AUTHORS LIFE. 19 

During my schoolboy days I had cultivated a fondness for 
poetry and drawing, and had no little ambition to acquire the 
reputation of a poet and artist. I spent many hours in writ- 
ing spring poetry, such as love ditties and acrostics, with 
which I supplied my lovesick fellow collegians. I spent many 
other hours iri drawing, under the skillful direction of Prof. 
Hudson, of the commercial and art department of the college, 
who ever seemed to take special interest in my advancement. 
Of all the poetry I ever wrote, which would have made a vol- 
ume of two or three hundred pages, I never had published but 
two pieces — one devoted to my sweetheart, who had gone off 
"with a handsomer man;" the other to "modest ugliness;" the 
publication of the first of which inflicted a wound upon the 
pure, unoffending and sensitive heart of one, the recollection 
of whose kindness, and of whose gentle and forgiving nature 
rebukes my folly and chides me even to this day for my own 
inexcusable rashness. A thousand times, the bitter memory 
of that one error, the outburst of passionate resentment for a 
wrong that existed only in my own morbid imagination, haunts 
me with the ghostly vision of countless joys, which died long 
before their time. More than a thousand times have I regret- 
ted it, not so much for the disappointment of my own heart, 
which was bitter enough, as for the consciousness of having 
perpetrated an unprovoked and deliberate wrong upon one of 
the purest, sweetest, and best of her gentle sex. Although I 
have never realized the joys of the married state, I deem it 
not improper to state that it has not been caused by any fail- 
ure on my own part, to appreciate and admire the virtues, 
goodness, and ennobling characteristics of woman. A strange 
fate seems to have followed me all the days of my marriage- 
able life. A fate that I cannot account for. I could relate a his- 
tory of my matrimonial mistakes, that would far outstrip the al- 
leged "mistakes of Moses." They would, with a very small 
amount of coloring, furnish the groundwork of a half dozen in- 



20 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

teresting novels; but I cannot record them here in a book 
whose purpose it is to deal with more important and practical 
truths. But I cannot dismiss the consideration of this part of 
my personal history without disposingofmy poetry and the pro- 
ducts of my devotion to the other fine arts. I had read Byron, 
Burns, Shakspeare, and others of my favorites until I could 
recite verbatim et literatim many pages in succession of their 
finest productions. I verily believe that I could at that time 
have repeated two-thirds of Childe Harold, and I have no 
ideahowmany others I had at my very tongue's end. In the line 
of poetical quotations I was fully equipped for the responsi- 
bilities of life, which lured me onward and upward to the con- 
test. I soon found that poetry and painting were not the kind 
of armor I needed. Having fully realized this fact, I prompt- 
ly decided to abandon both to their fate; and having ran- 
sacked every nook and corner for the manuscripts of poetry 
I had written, I gathered them up and piling them into a great 
heap, set fire to the mass, and in less time than it takes me to 
record the account, the product of my whining, lovesick muse 
went up, amid flame and smoke, into the regions of nothing- 
ness, for which they were by nature peculiarly adapted. I 
love good poetry yet, in its place. I admire pictures as but 
few others can; but the stubborn realities of life are to me a 
study more grand and important, a work more glorious and 
profitable, than the lifeless, speechless shadows upon the can- 
vas of art. I have ever been a lover of the "harmony of sweet 
sounds," and have attended a score of singing schools in my 
life; and, while I can sing tolerably good bass by practicing 
long enough, I have never been able to tell the difference be- 
tween a sharp and a flat, or between the key of A and the key 
of F, or any other letter. In fact, I never could distinguish 
one note from another on the staff, although I have studied 
for days and weeks in an effort to learn it. It is, I believe, 
an impossibility for me to learn music by note. I have no 



SKETCH OF THE AUTHORS LIFE. 21 

music in my soul except as it is beaten into it by the most un- 
tiring and persistent effort, and then it won't stay there. 

I began to study law in the spring of 1873, and in the 
latter part of the summer I unfortunately became involved in 
a political canvass, for which I was not, in the slightest de- 
gree, prepared, especially in the matter of finance. My 
acquaintance was too limited, my friends were not active and 
numerous enough; and the result may be easily guessed by 
my readers. I can not say that I seriously regret my course 
in that canvass, but it is better, for many reasons not neces- 
sary to mention, to pass over in silence that somewhat extra- 
ordinary canvass, considering my age. Suffice it to say that 
nearly all of those who vigorously opposed me in my prema- 
ture candidacy for State Senator at that time, have, long 
since, become my steadfast friends and supporters in anything 
I have since seen proper to undertake. 

On the 4th day of March, 1874, I was licensed to practice 
as an attorney and counselor at law. This event occurred in 
the town of Canton, VanZandt county, and the late lamented 
Judge Bonner pronounced the sentence of the Court upon me. 
which consigned me to the practice of law. His charge to 
me, as I proudly stood before him to receive the license 
which I prize so highly, I shall never, I can never, forget. He 
was ever afterwards my friend, and never lost an opportunity 
to encourage me in my profession, not only while he presided 
over the District Court of our district, but while he occupied,, 
with distinction, a seat upon the Supreme Bench of Texas. 
Before the ink was dry upon my license, I was employed as 
counsel in two cases of some importance, on the docket of 
the court which issued it. I made my maiden speech at the 
bar within two hours after I was admitted to practice, and, of 
course, made a botch of my client's case, but, so far as I 
know, he never found it out — at least he did not complain at 
the payment of my fee. 



PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 



On the first day of April following I settled at Kaufman and 
opened an office. At that time I did not have a book, a sin- 
gle article of office furniture, or money enough to purchase 
a postage stamp; and it pains me to acknowledge that I 
hadn't credit for two sheets of legal cap paper that I was 
aware of at the time. I was, at the expiration of the first 
month, ejected from the hotel, where I was boarding, for non- 
payment of my board, and lived for nearly a week thereafter 
upon cheese and crackers kindly furnished me by my next 
door neighbor, Mr. W. A. French, who was in the 
grocery business, and my personal friend from his earliest 
boyhood. I was, time and again, refused board without the 
pay in advance; and the " pay in advance " was a commodity 
which I did not possess. But I did not complain. I did not 
think hard of the lady who expelled me from her house. She 
was under no sort of obligation to trust me, and the appear- 
ances fully justified her in supposing that I never would pay 
her, that I would not be able to do so. I never blamed any- 
one else for refusing to credit me. The prospects for getting 
their money were gloomy, indeed, and I could not conscien- 
tiously assure them that I would ever be able to pay them a 
cent. It was an experiment with me, and my all depended 
upon the result. I went for days, and weeks, and months, 
without being able to see my way a week ahead of me. But 
I would not give up to despondency. I kept my troubles en- 
tirely to myself. I sought no friend to " counsel or condole," 
and at all times pretended that everything was lovely and 
that the "aquatic fowl was at a respectable altitude." 

One day shortly after I was admitted to the bar, I was in 
the court room taking notes of the proceedings with a view of 
learning the practical part of my chosen profession. I paid 
close attention to every speech that was made, and generally 
accepted everything the older lawyers said as the law, so far 
as it went. The district attorney was prosecuting a man by 



SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR'S LIFE. 23 

the name of Everhart for an aggravated assault upon a 
friend of mine by the name of Tom Shannon, the defendant 
having struck him on the head with a billiard cue, inflicting a 
serious injury, which I learned afterward was the ground of 
the aggravation, but which I did not know at the time, as 
will shortly appear. The able, and now distinguished gen- 
tleman who was then prosecuting the pleas of the State, used 
substantially the following language in his speech to the jury: 
" Gentlemen of the juiy, this is a very aggravated case; it is 
the most aggravated case of assault that I have ever been 
called upon to prosecute. It is in evidence that the defend- 
ant, before he struck Mr. Shannon with the billiard cue, in- 
sulted him; that he grossly insulted him;, that he insulted him 
in a way that no well bred gentleman has ever been known to 
insult another in this Lone Star State of Texas, the land of 
the free and home of the brave, where every man is permit- 
ted to worship God under his own vine and fig tree accord- 
ing to the dictates of his own conscience. Why, gentlemen 
of the jury, he refused to drink with him." This speech 
made an indellible impression upon my mind, and I felt that 
I had learned something of statutory law that might answer a 
good purpose. 

Not long afterwards I was called upon for a definition of 
aggravated assault, and in enumerating some other grounds of 
aggravation, I stated it to be the law that when a man should 
ask another to' take a drink with him, and that other man 
should refuse to accept the invitation, and decline to drink 
with him, and thereupon should knock the man so asking him 
to drink down with a billiard cue, he would be guilty of ag- 
gravated assault and battery. I had just got my license, and 
though I felt my importance — did not know any better. I 
was quite inexperienced, and my progress was slow, if prog- 
ress it could be called. 

Thus things went on for several years. My failure was 



24 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

predicted by many, but as I moved along the rough and un- 
even tenor of my way I gathered friends by the dozen. If 
the scope of this chapter would permit. I would like to build 
right here a monument to their memories that would be more 
durable than brass or Parian marble. But I cannot speak of 
one without disparagement to others equally dear to my heart 
and to my memory. I must make one exception, which, I 
know, will be approved by others who have done so much for 
me. I can not go further without paying a just and merited 
tribute to my true and ever steadfast friend of those dark and 
trying days of my professional life, Mr. Henry Erwin, and 
with him his estimable wife. He was at that time the county 
and district clerk of Kaufman county. He was moved by a 
feeling of my dire necessities to offer me all of the work in 
his office that he could not do himself with the assistance 
of his regular deputy, Mr. T. J. Broughton, another good 
friend. He also took me to his home and fed me for the 
work I did for him in his office, until I was able to make a 
living out of my profession. No better man lives than Henry 
Erwin; no nobler woman ever blessed the home and house- 
hold of a worthy husband than Mrs. Erwin. I have never 
been and will never be, able to compensate them for their 
kindness. May God grant them a long, happy, and prosper- 
ous life on earth and a rich reward in the world beyond. 
During the last six years of my career at Kaufman, I boarded 
with Mrs. L. J. French, whose many acts of kindness I shall 
ever remember with gratitude. 

In April, 1878, 1 entered into co-partnership in the practice 
of law with Nestor Morrow, Esq., a young man with whom I 
had been intimately associated during the latter years of my 
college life. We had, during those years, become friends, and 
it was not long after he obtained his license to practice that 
we became inseparably connected in our chosen profession. 
I say inseparably connected because nothing, I think, cotild 



SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR'S LIFE. 25 

have dissolved the relationship as long as we both remained 
in the country. His name, wherever he is known, is the syn- 
onym for honesty and personal integrity; his legal ability is 
of the first order, and as a safe and reliable counselor he has 
no superior, and but few equals of his age and experience, 
His caution is, perhaps, too fully developed to insure for him 
the reputation for brilliancy as a practitioner. 

We were reasonably successful during the seven years we 
remained together and accumulated some money. He began 
saving up and investing his part of the net proceeds of the 
business much earlier than I did, and, as a consequence, was 
many thousand dollars ahead of me in a financial point of 
view when we dissolved our co-partnership. I attribute it, to 
some extent, to the fact that he married soon after we went 
into business together, and I didn't, for reasons not necessary 
to mention. 

Not long after I began to practice my profession at Kauf- 
man, I was engaged for a nominal consideration to write oc- 
casionally for the local columns of the Star, a weekly paper 
published by Messrs. Clark & Walker, who were at that time 
quite friendly towards me, and in the spring of 1880 I took 
charge of the editorial management of the Sun, succeeding 
Mr. L. R. Brown, well known throughout Texas as "Hightone" 
Brown, and who ranks among the most brilliant and accom- 
plished journalists of the State. 

My short career as editor of the Sun was fraught with many 
amusing incidents and adventures, but I can only relate one, 
which is, perhaps, above an average sample in point of in- 
terest. About the time I retired from the editorial chair, an 
article, or rather a communication, appeared in the columns 
of the Sun, which was anything else than complimentary to a 
certain tonsorial artist of Athens, a little town about forty 
miles from Kaufman and in our judicial district. A week or 
so after the article was published I went to Athens to court, 



26 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 



and, as was my custom in those days, I never neglected 
an opportunity to give annoyance to the fair ones, who would 
give me a chance ; and having an engagement to call on 
a lady friend, and in order to appear to advantage, I went 
around to the barber shop to get shaved and otherwise "done 
up" for the occasion. As soon as I seated myself in the chair 
I noticed something very peculiar in the appearance, tone of 
voice and general manner of the barber. He appeared very 
nervous in every movement he made, but I attributed it to a 
slight touch of "temporary insanity," w r hich at that time was 
very common among barbers and some other classes of 
people. As he whetted his razor he set his eyes, glistening 
with fierceness upon my face, remarked in any other than a 
pleasing tone of voice : "You are from Kaufman, ain't you ?" 
I assented as politely as I knew how. " Your name is Grubbs, 
I believe." Thinking perhaps that he might be desirous of 
paying me a compliment, such as that he had often heard of 
me before, I promptly replied that that was my name. Said 
he : " You are the d — d fool editor of the Sun, I have been 
informed." To that question I was instinctively as silent as 
the tomb. Indeed I was so embarrassed by the nature of his 
language that I could not reply. Having lathered my jaws 
sufficiently, he began to draw the razor carelessly about my 
face. He then halted suddenly, and, standing majestically 
before me as he waived the cold steel over his head and all 
around him, he says : " You have published a d — d lie on 
me, and I am going to have satisfaction." He cursed out the 
paper, and swore that he could whip any man who would ac- 
knowledge that he originated the scandal. He said that he 
had been wanting to see the editor of the paper, and that he 
would make it hot for him if he did'nt take it back and set 
him right on the matter. I never was so completely, " corn- 
ered " in all my life; I felt that my earthly pilgrimage 
was drawing to a close, and that something would have to be 



SKETCH OF THE AUTHORS LIFE. 27 

done in the way of scientific lying, or I would be a mutilated 
corpse almost in the twinkling of an eye. I was not guilty, 
but I was so badly embarrassed that I was not certain 
whether I was or not. I tried to reason the matter with him, 
and finally told him upon my honor as a lawyer and a truthful 
man that I had never written a solitary line for the paper. 
That, while it was true that my name appeared as editor and 
proprietor, it was only done for the benefit of the true editor 
and proprietor who was a very ordinary man; and that the 
reason he wanted my name as editor was, to give tone to 
and increase the circulation of the paper. I finally reconciled 
the irate barber, but I did not tarry very long when I escaped 
from the horrors of the awful situation. I filled my engage- 
ment with my lady friend, but my mind was so com- 
pletely distracted by the recollections of my desperate ad- 
venture that I could not enjoy myself. The thought of hav- 
ing lied to the barber troubled me sorely, as I was not used to 
lying, except in the legitimate discharge of my professional 
duties. Since that day my ambition to swing my euphonious 
name to the editorial masthead of a paper has not been 
so strong as it had been before. 

In the year 1884 I became a candidate for district judge of 
the eighth judicial district. My opponent happened to be 
more popular than I, and the result can be easily con- 
jectured. My own county gave me over fifteen hundred ma- 
jority, and my vote in the other counties of the district was, 
I think, creditable, considering the huge jokes that were told 
during the canvass. It would be folly to go into the details 
of that good humored canvass, or to attempt to unveil the se- 
cret impulses which prompted the actions of some men of my 
own county in conspiring to defeat me for the office. As soon 
as the result was ascertained I promptly decided to abandon 
Kaufman county, the scene of my early professional struggles, 
forever, and on the first day of January, 1885, I moved to 



28 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

the city of Greenville, where I have since resided. During 
the first year of my residence in Greenville I was associate 
editor of the Herald, and contributed regularly to its columns* 
In July, 1885, I formed a co-partnership with T. D. Montrose, 
Esq., under the firm name and style of Montrose & Grubbs, 
with whom I am at this time associated in the practice of my 
profession. On the first day of January, 1886, I voluntarily 
severed my connection with the editorial department of the 
Herald, and have since devoted the whole of my time and en- 
ergies to the practice of law, the results of which have been 
reasonably profitable and satisfactory to myself and partner. 
In politics I have ever been a democrat of the Jackson type, 
although at times I have broken over the traces and gone into 
business on my own hook, politically apeaking. Perhaps this 
accounts for the fact that I have to this good day been per- 
mitted to enjoy the quietude and otium cum dignit l ate of pri- 
vate life, so to speak. I have always voted for any and all 
sorts of prohibition, whenever an opportunity presented itself. 
In doing so I have not burdened my conscience with the 
slightest doubt of the constitutionality of the measure, nor 
have I stopped to consider seriously whether it was demo- 
cratic or undemocratic. I have long since satisfied myself 
on the only question that could possibly unsettle my mind 
upon the subject. I have decided that it is right. 



CHAPTER I. 



INTRODUCTORY. 

POPULAR ERRORS AND DIFFICULTIES IN THE WAY OF REFORM. 



When a physician is called to the bedside of a patient, the 
•first thing he will do, provided he understands his business, 
will be to make a proper diagnosis of the case. Before he can 
safely administer a dose of medicine he must not only know 
what disease his patient is suffering from, but he must under- 
stand the nature of such disease, and of the causes which op- 
erate to produce it. When he has fully satisfied himself of 
these by the use of the means afforded by the symptoms and 
such other information as he may be able to obtain relative 
to the temperament, habits, etc., of the patient, he is prepared 
to begin the course of treatment adopted, and can anticipate 
with reasonable certainty the effects of such treatment and the 
progress of the disease, and its cure. This is equally true of 
every character of remedial effort. Any other course'neces- 
sarily results in failure, and the wonder is that such failure is 
not oftener foreseen by those engaged in finding outjand ap- 
plying the remedies for the multiform evils in every^depart- 
ment of our political, moral, and social fabric. |c In jio other 
cause, perhaps, have there been more mistakes made by the 
moulders and leaders of public sentiment than in the methods 
adopted for the prevention of drunkenness and its concomi- 
tant vices and the ultimate suppression of the liquor traffic. 
While there are some engaged in the work who have taken 

(29) 



30 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

the trouble to investigate thoroughly the nature and causes- 
of this fearful disease which has destroyed more of the lives 
and happiness of our people than any other known in the cat- 
alogue of human ailments — physical, moral, and social com- 
bined — there are many who work entirely upon the surface, 
and instead of accomplishing anything in the direction of 
temperance reform or practical prohibition, they rather ag- 
gravate and encourage the evil by their misdirected efforts to 
destroy it. They are of the class who are unfortunately lack- 
ing in common sense generally. They do not understand the 
first principles which enter into the constitution of the human 
mind and heart. They never see but one side of a ques- 
tion, and fail to see that in its true light. They can cherish 
at the same time but one thought and desire — can entertain 
but one idea, and are never satisfied without a hobby, with 
which they bore the very life out of those with whom they 
daily come in contact. Many of them are called "cranks" 
because of this one-sided and impractical way of thinking and 
acting upon matters of the greatest concern. They generally 
mean well, and if they could succeed in carrying into execu- 
tion the visionary conceptions of their brain, the millennium 
would be certain to come. There would be no necessity for 
further delay. 

An error quite common to temperance workers is that they 
try to accomplish too much by a single effort, and are too* 
easily discouraged by the apparent failure of their too san- 
guine expectations. They are too often sadly deficient in pa- 
tience and perseverance, and if they are unable to bring about 
a great revolution in public sentiment on the subject of pro- 
hibition and temperance, in a day, a month, or a year, they 
become despondent; and it is not unfrequently the case that 
they go over to the enemy and become as enthusiastic in 
their opposition to the cause as they were before in its favor* 

I have often seen them work faithfully and efficiently for 



INTRODUCTORY. 31 



weeks and for months in an effort to secure the adoption of 
local prohibition in their precincts and counties, not only 
spending their time, but their means with the greatest liber- 
ality in the promotion of the cause. In such efforts they have 
been deluded with the fervent expectation that the adoption 
of this salutary measure would absolutely put an end to the 
use of intoxicating liquors for purposes prohibited by the law 
within the boundaries of the territory for which it is enacted, 
and for several miles beyond the limits of its legal operation. 
I have afterwards seen these same individuals among the first 
to declare local option a failure, and heard them express grave 
and serious doubts as to the efficiency of any form of prohibi- 
tory enactments. To see one or two men staggering from intoxi- 
cation upon the streets or in the alleys of a local option town is, 
usually, entirely sufficient to convince them of the utter im- 
practicability of the enforcement of the law, and to make them 
ashamed to acknowledge that they ever voted for local op- 
tion. They are equally as uncertain, unstable, and unreliable 
in other important undertakings which require the exercise of 
unswerving resolution, patience, and perseverance. John 
Bunyan's Mr. Pliable aptly represents the true characteristics 
of this class of temperance workers. Many of them are good 
people, and with a sufficient amount of will power, stability 
and determination, would do much in the great work of 
bringing about the temperance reform which is certainly a 
"consummation devoutly to be wished." Having said this 
much by way of introduction, I will endeavor, in the chapters 
which are to follow, to discover some of the causes of drunk- 
enness, to portray some of its fearful results, and to suggest 
for the consideration of those whose curiosity may lead them 
to peruse them, some of the practical remedies for the evil 
which has produced so much of human despair in the world's 
history, and which is to-day destroying the lives and happi- 
ness of millions of people. It is the purpose of the writer of 



32 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

these chapters to awaken, if possible, a more intelligent en- 
quiry into the nature of the disease which has been so long 
preying upon the very vitals of society, and, if possible, direct 
the remedial efforts of our temperance reformers rather to the 
very seat of the disease than to the temporary suppression of 
the effects of the social ailment. We have already tried 
the latter sufficiently, and while it cannot be said that milch 
good has not been the result of the treatment of the symptoms, 
in the timely use of these remedies which afford temporary 
relief to the patient, it must be admitted that the patient, the 
great body of our people, has advanced very slowly, if at all, 
in the direction of a permanent cure. But before I proceed 
to the discussioa of some of the causes of this blighting evil, 
I desire to speak of the difficulties in the way of bringing 
about the much needed reform. 

The first obstacle in the way is, that the disease of the body 
politic has been of such long duration that it has be- 
come thoroughly constitutional. This accursed tendency to 
drunkenness reaches back almost, if not quite, to the cradle 
of the race. As far back in the dim ages of the past as 
we have any record, we find men, some of whom important 
and prominent characters, at times giving way to this thirst 
for strong drink. While I shall in the further discussion 
of the subject insist that the origin of this strange appetite for 
voluntary insanity is to be found in the perverted habits 
of mankind and not the economy of nature as put into oper- 
ation by the hand of the Almighty, I must admit that it 
reaches beyond the beginning of history. I find that shortly 
after the flood which swept mankind from the face of the 
earth, with the exception of one family, the head of that fam- 
ily drank wine to a degree of beastly and humiliating drunk- 
enness. I find in the impartial biographies of the patriarchs 
that this vice is mentioned among their manifold weaknesses. 
It is useless to attempt to conceal these blemishes in the per- 



INTRODUCTORY. 33 



sonal habits of some who, on account of their virtues or 
wisdom in other respects became great in spite of their 
frailties. Indeed, the great men of history in all ages of 
the world have had their faults, their foibles, and their 
vices. Besides, the personal history of latter day heroes in- 
variably leave out the dark spots of their character. It is 
doubtful if there has ever lived a man in the world, (not in- 
cluding the Savior of the world), who would give his consent 
to the publication of a true history of his life, a true portrayal 
of every phase of his personal character. A great man's his- 
tory is written either by his friends or his enemies. If by the 
former, his great actions are extolled to the skies ; his 
bad traits or his personal frailties are studiously suppressed : 
if by the latter, his greater vices are shown up in all of 
their enormity ; the smaller, such as partake of a private 
character, are overlooked and left in the dark. 

In our day the fact that a great man is given to excessive 
and inordinate drinking is of so small a matter that not even 
his enemies will think enough of it to give it a place in 
his biography. In olden times it was not so. The sacred 
historians, who were impartial above all historians on earth, 
thought drunkenness a matter of sufficient importance to de- 
mand a place in the history of the lives of their heroes. 
They certainly did not regard it as an exemplification of true 
greatness, but they must have regarded it as an illustration of 
the weaknesses of the flesh, which may dwell in the same 
house of clay with the elements of true greatness of mind and 
of soul. But this branch of the subject will be thorougly re- 
viewed in a subsequent chapter. That mankind are naturallv 
prone to do evil may be assumed. In assuming that fact, 
fully taught by inspiration, it must follow that mankind are 
naturally prone to drink whiskey just as they are disposed to 
do other acts of wickedness. Moreover, it must be evident 
that it is, perhaps, above all others one that has never lacked 



34 PRACTICAL PROHIBTTION. 

for cultivation and development. All history, aside from our 
own personal observation and experience, teaches this be- 
yond question. The result is, that the world has become 
filled with constitutional drunkards, leaving out of the esti- 
mate all of the moderate drinkers, who are fast drifting 
into the same unhappy condition. To cure a disease of 
so long standing as to become chronic or constitutional, some- 
times requires many years of unremitting treatment, even by 
the most skillful physicians. None but the charlatans in this 
noble and useful profession pretend that they can cure them 
in a day, a week, or a month. Nature requires time to col- 
lect her shattered resources, and through the timely aid of 
approved remedies, after a long while the system may be 
restored to its normal condition of vigor and health. While 
the quack by the use of opiates, sedatives, and his long line 
of palliative preparations and prescriptions, temporarily 
relieves the agony of the patient, the skillful physician 
who understands his calling administers those remedies only 
which tend to the removal of the causes which operate to pro- 
duce the disease. I fear that the great body politic, writhing 
from the effects of this deadly and destructive disease, has. 
been treated by too many professional quacks, and, that 
the true causes of the great social ailment have not received 
the consideration from the doctors that their importance 
has imperatively demanded. Too many quacks ; too many 
King-Cure-alls ; too many electric-infallible-instantaneous 
remedies, which merely destroy the pain which is ever in- 
tended as an index of the ravages of the disease, the sign 
board for the direction of science in the application of effect- 
ual remedy. Why is it that the politicians and prominent 
men of the country persist in their quackery ? Why is it that 
they dare not make a solitary effort to crush out and destroy 
this deadly disease which is wasting the vitals of the great 



INTRODUCTORY. 35 



body politic for which they pretend to have so much 
concern. 

Before taking up the discussion of the main questions in- 
volved, I shall now attempt to answer that important and 
pertinent question. It is because of their insatiate desire for 
office. They are fully cognizant of the true situation. They 
are aware of the time honored weaknesses and prejudices of 
the people. They thoroughly appreciate the political power 
wielded by the whisky element of the State. They know that 
whisky is practically invincible at the ballot box, and they 
know full well that if they incur its displeasure and combined 
opposition, they will be left "when the roturns are all in" 
and the votes are all counted. They are mighty in the de- 
fense of time-honored principles and the blood-bought rights 
which have come down from the days of our revolutionary 
fathers ; they can stand up in Senates and other high places- 
of the government and defy the god of War clothed in the 
thunders of destruction, aspecially when afar off, but they are 
paltry cowards when it comes to making and prosecuting a 
war against popular prejudice and error, against popular 
vices, against whisky, whose ravages are strewing our fair land 
with the wrecks of humanity, their kindred, their friends, and 
last, but not least in their estimation, their beloved constitu- 
ents. They believe it to be unpopular even to be a hero in 
such a strife. They temporize, they halt, they finally go over 
to the enemy, while they profess to be friends to humanity. 
Such statesmen! such demagogues! From such political 
quacks and inglorious time-servers, "Good Lord deliver us." 
But I am not going to say hard things about them. If they 
will only condescent to read and consider the contents of the 
following chapters, I shall be content, hoping that they may 
find some thought which may lead them to see this question 
in its true light, and to realize the error of tneir way before it 
is too late. I shall not call it a crime. Let us here compro- 



$6 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

rnise on a name for their indifference to the interests of the 
public which they so much love as they profess, and call it 
u innocuous desuetude." 

Another serious obstacle in the way of expeditious temper- 
ance reform is the prevailing opposition on the part of the 
great masses of the people to any sort of innovation upon 
long established custom. This persistent adherence to prece- 
dent, though based upon popular error and though proved be- 
yond question to be at variance with every principle of reason 
and of expediency, has stood in the way of every effort of 
genius in the advancement of intellectual, moral, social, or 
material progress. So thoroughly are they wedded to the er- 
rors and follies of the past that they refuse to believe the 
truth when practically demonstrated through the medium of 
■every one of their five avenues for the accumulation of ex- 
perimental wisdom. When the lonely pioneer in science, 
politics, or religion, has been able by dint of long hours of 
unremitting study and perseverance to evolve one truth from 
a great mass of long accepted error, he is regarded with sus- 
picion and disfavor by the unskillful masses who accuse him 
of conspiring with the devil or some hateful political party to 
destroy the long cherished institutions of our fathers. They 
cry out, "Let him be crucified," and if it were not for the pro- 
tection given by the laws of the country, they would crucify 
him in the very light of the boasted civilization of to-day. 
In other times the pioneers of truth suffered martyrdom; they 
were put to death by the most cruel methods contrived by 
the barbarous ingenuity of popular vengeance. In those 
times the science of human government was unknown; stat- 
utes for the protection of the innocent — bills of right, habeas 
corpus, and the long catalogue of constitutional barriers 
which to-day shield and protect from violence the humblest 
and the weakest of our citizens — did not exist. If they did 
not at this time stand in the way of popular ignorance and 



INTRODUCTORY. 37 



prejudice, the very ground upon which we stand while we 
boast of our advanced civilization, would be drinking the 
blood of martyrs who have dared or may dare to doubt or 
gainsay the wisdom of our ancestors. There may be those 
who cannot think so at first, but if they will only look abroad 
and take note of the bigotry and intolerance, which every- 
where exist among the ignorant and superstitious, they must 
realize that the broad agis of our constitution and laws is all 
that protects us from the fires of persecution, not only for re- 
ligious, but for scientific and political heresy. Why, the altars 
of popular ignorance, bigotry and intolerance would be ev- 
erywhere smoking with the blood of their victims condemned, 
immolated and sacrificed for no other crime than an assault 
and battery upon popular error. Moreover, we may say that 
the devotees of science in all its departments are even now 
suffering a martyrdom little less severe. Social ostracism, 
personal villification, and every humiliating insult and injury 
are constantly being inflicted upon them with impunity. 

Let a man advance a new idea about any thing whatever, 
and a lot of aping boobies, by whom he is surrounded will 
swear that he is crazy. They will not only accuse him of 
being hopelessly insane, but they will absolutely prove him to 
be guilty. There may be no writ de lunatico inquirendo issued 
against him, but he will be crazy all the same, and, like die 
lepers of old, he will be forced to remain outside of the 
camps of the multitude. His life must ever be one of hope- 
less solitude. If he should ever be restored to soundness of 
mind and discretion, it will be long years after he is dead. It 
will be after the truths of his transcendent genius has evolved, 
have undergone the test of experience and have received the 
stamp of popular approval. The very boys around him 
despise him and refuse to be caught in his company. They 
mock him, as he walks the streets alone wrapt in the serious 
contemplation of his own social banishment. If he has tin- 



38 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

fortunately lost his profusion of "capillary substance," they 
tell him as they did one of old, " Go up, old Baldhead." He 
is equally despised by the girls. The children whom he 
loves so much to caress ever mindful of the unkindly words of 
their parents towards him, turn away from him as they would 
from a viper. He is, indeed, " a stranger in a strange land 
with no friendly tear to be shed for his suffering." Is it 
strange that he should grow weary of life ? that he should 
grow despondent? that he should long for a summons to "join 
the innumerable caravan ?" that he should grow impatient, 
and tiring of life rush unbidden into the presence of his 
Maker, who, alone is able to give him the rest he so much 
desires? Is it a wonder that he seeks refuge from the terrors 
of a persecution, scarcely less rigorous to his sensitive nature 
than the great inquisition ? The sneers of the heartless mas- 
ses, who have neither the capacity nor the disposition to 
understand and appreciate the truths he has wrought out and 
promulgated, have driven more men of acknowledged bril- 
liancy to self-destruction than any other agency, and yet the 
world keeps on sneering and will continue to keep it up until 
the requiem of time shall be sounded by Gabriel. I may have 
occasion to recur to the perils to which genius is exposed in 
its contests with ignorance, prejudice and error, in a future 
chapter of this work. I return to the consideration of the 
difficulties in the way of reform as applied to the subject of 
prohibition and temperance. 

The world is full of doubting Thomases; those who doubt 
the wisdom, propriety, and practicability of every conceiva- 
ble measure; of every character of effort that may be under- 
taken to check the spread of the evil, or to ultimately sup- 
press it. They doubt the wisdom and propriety of preaching 
temperance from the pulpits; of proclaiming it before the 
people from the forum and upon the highways and hedges; of 
teaching it in any form or manner whatever. They doubt if 



INTRODUCTORY. 39 



it is a moral question; they doubt if it is a religious question; 
they doubt if it is a political question; and, finally, they 
doubt whether it is a question at all. They particularly 
doubt the efficiency of legislation, however stringent and se- 
vere, and however great the facilities for its execution, to ac- 
complish anything whatever in the way of checking or sup- 
pressing the infamous liquor traffic. It is truly a wonder why 
they do not doubt the wisdom and propriety of a law to pun- 
ish a man for theft of horses, knowing as they do that it does 
not absolutely prohibit some men from tampering with for- 
bidden horse flesh. These systematic doubters, and the 
world is full of them, doubt if such law is right and they 
doubt if it will prohibit. They doubt the right of a majority 
of the people to interfere with the drinking proclivities of 
others, and then doubt that they would drink less upon the pas- 
sage of such laws than they do under the license or any other 
ssytem. The latter doubt is quite easily removed by a feather- 
weight sophism of an anti-prohibitionist orator. They soon 
become convinced that prohibition is bad, because it pro- 
hibits, and worse, because it does not prohibit. Beautiful 
sophistry ! My dear, doubting friends, what are you going to 
do ? Do you realize that drunkenness is an evil ? Do you 
observe that the evil is abroad in the land ? Do you know of 
any better remedy than local option ? Do you know of a 
more efficient one than State prohibition ? If you do, then 
lay aside your doubts and come to the front. Let us hear 
from you at once. There is no time for delay. Moral sua- 
sion, preaching and weeping have done all they can; they 
have done wonders. If it had not been for their efforts in 
checking the spread of this evil, the Lord only knows what 
would have become of his people. These potent influences 
have done much to keep men from committing the ordinary 
crimes and misdemeanors of the country — perhaps about as 
much as the penal laws of our State — but they have never 



40 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

been supposed to possess sufficient power and efficiency to 
take the place of the criminal code. The influence of the 
church and the Sunday school has, doubtless, kept many a 
man from meddling with things which did not belong to him: 
yet, we find it necessary to have laws against theft. And sa 
on through the whole catalogue of crime. Suppose that the 
constitutional doubters should be permited to have the full 
benefit of their doubts, and that the Legislature should by 
one omnibus bill repeal the entire criminal code of Texas,, 
and leave the material interests of the people to the protec- 
tion of moral suasion, religious training, the " blatant preach- 
ers," and crying women. Then set afloat the idea contended 
for, that personal liberty is supreme. Do you see the ab- 
surdity? Do you comprehend the legitimate conclusion of 
the false logic ? 

But there is another class of people — the antipodes of the 
doubters, who demand passing notice. They are the over- 
credulous. They take everything for granted, skim around 
upon the surface of every popular movement or question, and 
that they are prohibitionists to-day is no sign whatever that 
they will be prohibitionists to-morrow. All of this class who 
have sense enough to discern the current of popular sentiment 
are professional politicians. They shout at every camp-meet- 
ing, and are loud-mouthed advocates of Christianity when, 
camp-meetings and Christianity are in season. When the 
sporting season comes around, they are good sport for the 
devil. In doubtful seasons they assume the "livery of the 
court of Heaven," and go about hurraing for the cause of the 
captain of the infernal regions. They cry "Good Lord" out 
of one side of their mouths, and "Most excellent devil" out of 
the other, alternating between the two sides to suit the chang- 
ing positions of the popular ear. The weaker members of this* 
numerically great class are the dupes of every designing, un- 
scrupulous villian that comes tramping through the country- 



INTRODUCTORY. 41 



They love to be humbugged, and they are never left without 
ample resources for the gratification of their passion. They 
work hard the year round for a small surplus above the cost 
of a miserable living, and about Christmas some sharper 
comes along with a patent and "scoops" it all up. Instead of 
thinking before acting, they do exactly the reverse. They act 
the fool, and then afterwards sorrowfully think over what they 
have done, and spend valuable time in useless regrets, won- 
dering why they did not think of it sooner. Before they get 
through sorrowing over their folly, another sharper comes 
along and "scoops" them again. 

And so they go on through life. Of all people on earth, 
they deserve the most of our sympathy. They are not respon- 
sible for their weakness. God made them to be, or permitted 
them to remain foolish, perhaps for no other purpose than to 
confound those who are wise in their own conceit. It is un- 
just and irreverent to suppose that God has done wrong or 
made a mistake in the make up of their mental and moral 
constitutions. They are here for a purpose. We have no 
right to condemn them. I shall not do it, but, as they are 
here, we can not ignore their existence. They are wholly un- 
reliable, although they do not mean to be so. When they 
promise that they will stay with you "through evil, as well as 
good report," they do not intend to be false; they do not cal- 
culate to deceive you. If you are a candidate for an office, 
every one of them will pledge himself to vote for you, and if 
the voting were to be simultaneous with the promise, no can- 
didate would ever be defeated — they would all be elected — a 
dozen or more to the same office. But as the time for action 
is usually at a distance, in the intervening time another vic- 
tim for the sacrifice comes around. They all promise to vote 
for him, and mean every word of it. When the day of the 
election comes on, such a man will go to his voting place 
without the least idea whom he will finally decide to vote for. 



42 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

A "good worker" is on the corner watching his approach. 
He goes to him and oftener than otherwise makes out his en- 
tire ticket, marches him to the ballot box and votes him just 
as he wouid use a machine manufactured to order for the 
purposes of voting with dispatch. 

Such is a brief outline of human character as applied to 
public affairs. In the matter of popular elections I have had 
some opportunities to observe, and, as the short sketch of my 
life has already shown, I am not without some little experi- 
ence. Having said this much by way of introduction, I will 
proceed in the next chapter with a discussion of some ot the 
causes of drunkenness and the milder forms of intemperance. 



OHAPTEE IL 



CAUSES OF DRUNKENNESS. 

HEREDITARY DEFECT IN TRAINING CHILDREN'S APPETITES AND 

IMPULSES BAD EXAMPLES CURIOSITY INDISCRIMINATE 

SOCIAL TREATING — FASHION'S POWER SOCIAL CONDITION 

OF THE COUNTRY. 



It is not proposed in this chapter, nor is it necessary to the 
purposes in view in the present discussion, to go into a lengthy 
dissertation upon the hereditary laws, nor to speak at length 
upon those constitutional tendencies to inebriety, found to 
exist in perhaps no inconsiderable class of our people. That 
the thirst for intoxicating drinks is often transmitted from 
father to son through successive generations is, I believe, a 
generally conceded physiological fact. It is, to some extent, 
demonstrated by our own individual observation, but it is not 
without its numerous exceptions. It is by no means an un- 
common occurrence that while the father is from his youth 
up a sot and a drunkard, not one of his offspring may ever 
manifest the least disposition to intemperance. It is doubt- 
less sometimes the case that the very example of the parent 
has a tendency to neutralize such hereditary inclination, and 
to cause the mind to revolt at the degradation to which a pro- 
tracted indulgence in the use of intoxicants ultimately leads. 
Such considerations would necessarily have great influence 
upon the mind of an individual possessing a reasonable de- 
gree of self respect, coupled with strong will power and self 
control. Without the latter, the parental example will most 

(43) 



44 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

naturally be followed by the son, and a long line of drunk- 
ards will ordinarily be the result. This hereditary tendency 
towards intemperance and drunkenness could not have been 
originally planted in the human constitution, but must have 
had its origin in the perverted habits of some of our ances- 
tors, and has, in many instances, become more and more ram- 
pant and incorrigible through the indulgence of succeeding 
generations. Those who unfortunately belong to a line of 
constitutional drunkards are greatly to be pitied, and in every 
instance where it may appear that no remedy is adequate to 
the removal or correction of the evil, the victim should be 
taken specially in charge by the government, and treated and 
cared for as other classes of unfortunates who are provided 
with asylums and other available means for their comfort and 
protection. But this branch of the subject will be more fully 
considered in a future chapter. 

Leaving this class of confirmed and constitutional in- 
ebriates in the hands of a higher power, we will next consider 
specially some of those causes of drunkenness which are 
directly attributable to human agency, through the medium 
of patent defects in our social system, and which it is cer- 
tainly possible in some degree to remedy by human agency, 
both through the instrumentality of individual effort and the 
exercise of legislative authority. In the first place, our edu- 
cational system is defective. In childhood and youth the ap- 
petite, the desire for good things to eat and good things to 
drink is the controlling passion and most powerful incentive, 
and its demands are at all times the most imperative and ap- 
parently insatiable. The average child is not happy except 
when it is eating and drinking, and its most miserable 
moments are those it endures while waiting for the older per- 
sons of the household to get through eating, so that it can 
have full sway at the table. This is all right — it is the voice 
of nature, and the child is not to be chastised or even 



CAUSES OF DRUNKENNESS. 45 

scolded for the want of a biscuit and a cup of milk between 
meals. If it did not cry for its " hourly bread," that fact 
would be unmistakable evidence that something was wrong 
with its physical system. The constant desire of parents to 
•satisfy this appetite and to please their children leads them, 
especially those who are able to afford it, to give them highly 
seasoned victuals and stimulating drinks, which, though not 
relished at first, become practically indispensable as they 
grow older, and until they pass beyond the pale of parental 
control and correction. While whisky, brandy, rum, etc., 
are usually enumerated as intoxicants, there are many other 
things regarded as entirely harmless as articles of ordinary 
diet, which are quite stimulating in their nature, and while 
they might not be hurtful in that way to an adult person, are 
peculiarly so to children and young persons. In a normal 
state the human system does not require or demand a stim- 
ulant, but rather revolts at its effects as it would at a poison. 
When a young man who has never taken a drink of whisky 
finds himself thirsting for intoxicants, he may know that the 
thirst has been produced by something which preceded it. 
He has probably been raised in luxury ; from his youth 
up he has indulged in "riotous living;" he feels a singular 
depression of his spirits ; his sensibilities become benumbed; 
he wants something to brace himself up, goes to a saloon, and 
with his first drink begins the downward road to drunken- 
ness and depravity. He may have first begun with coffee, 
then advanced to tobacco, and on and on, from one step to 
another, until the ill-spent life is ended. 

Sallust, the Roman author, says that humanity is twofold 
in its nature. One part mankind possesses in common with 
the gods ; the other in common with the brute creation. 
The mental characteristics of human nature, and perhaps the 
emotional, in part, at least, are supposed to partake of the at- 
tributes of divinity, and to link the human race to its creator 



46 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

and to its immortal destiny ; the appetites and passions, on 
the other hand, have a tendency to degrade man to a position 
even below the level of the ordinary beasts of the field. The 
life of the average of mankind is a constant struggle for the 
mastery between the opposing forces of his nature — the one 
endeavoring to lift him upwards in the scale of existence : 
the other to pull him down to the gratification of those de- 
sires which are common to the lower orders of animated 
creatures. The latter force is naturally the stronger, and re- 
quires no peculiar system of cultivation in order to aid 
its development. Like the weeds and grass which spring up 
in spontaneous profusion and grow to maturity, sapping the 
substance and destroying the valuable products of the farm 
and giving so much annoyance to the husbandman, so the 
baser appetites and passions, if unchecked by the influence of 
a liberal education and of the necessary moral restraint, con- 
tinue to grow stronger and stronger, while the mental and 
moral forces become proportionately weaker and weaker. 
Take a boy of ordinary intelligence, or even of more than 
ordinary mental power and activity, coupled with an average 
moral and physical constitution ; permit him to grow up 
in the unrestrained indulgence of his appetites and passions ; 
let his motto be from the beginning of his life : " Eat, drink,, 
and be merry ;" let no special pains be taken in cultivation 
and development of his mental and moral faculties : and the 
result will be a mere brute in the form of a human being. 
His very appearance will betray his character. Beastliness 
and depravity will stamp themselves unmistakably upon his 
face and upon his entire being, and it would require no spe- 
cial skill in the science of physiognomy to enable even a 
casual observer to determine his true character. That such 
a man will in nine cases out of ten drink to excess and 
to drunkenness need not be doubted for a moment, and why 
should he not? He has no well defined object or purpose in 



CAUSES OF DRUNKENNESS. 47 

life, no aspirations to urge him to the attainment of honors, 
no ambition to become famous, no desire to be useful, 
and no hope of ever acquiring a reasonable degree of respect- 
ability among the higher classes of society. His only hap- 
piness is in the satisfaction of the demands of the depraved 
passions and perverted appetites of his nature. 

There are all around us hundreds and thousands of just such 
characters — men who have grown up to maturity and become 
old without the restraining influence of education, without the 
privileges of refinement, strangers to good breeding. Many 
of them are drunkards, no small number are tramps, vaga- 
bonds, and outcasts, and but few of that unfortunate element 
are within the reach of the effects of temperance or moral re- 
formers. It is practically useless and futile to consume time 
with an effort to redeem them; although the ultimate salva- 
tion of some may not be entirely beyond the range of human 
possibility. But there are those who will say that education, 
coupled with wholesome moral restraint, is not always effect- 
ive in the prevention of the contraction of intemperate habits, 
and doubtless, a few who will say that education rather in- 
creases than diminishes the tendency in that direction. Some 
of them will say "there is the son of a preacher, or of an up- 
right and consistent elder, or deacon, who is a great drunk- 
ard," and by taking a few such examples they jump at the con- 
clusion that ignorance is more conducive to sobriety and tem- 
perance than a high degree of mental culture and intellectual 
development. In the very nature of things, it can not be true. 
By education is not only meant the correct training of the 
mental faculties, but the moral powers as well, which are 
closely allied and connected with those of an intellectual 
character. The cultivation of these necessarily strengthens 
them and adds force to the will. Give to the mind the true 
conception of the difference between right and wrong, and to 
the moral forces the strength and courage to enforce the men- 



48 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

tal conviction, and they together will subjugate the opposing 
forces of human nature which would otherwise triumph in the 
struggle. That drunkenness is an evil, that it is wrong, that 
it is detrimental to the individual and to societv, will be de- 
nied by none, not even the greatest drunkard that can be 
found in the gutters. The young man as he finds the habit 
fast taking possession of his being, must know that it is not 
only wrong, but ruinous in its effects, and the reason why he 
persists in its indulgence, is, because he is lacking in moral 
courage and personal resolution. The principal causes of the 
great amount of drunkenness among the well educated classes 
will be more fully treated hereafter — causes which do not op- 
erate so forcibly upon the ignorant and uneducated classes of 
our people. But before passing from this branch of the sub- 
ject I desire to speak briefly of the causes which often lead 
the sons of preachers, and others of the truly pious classes of 
people, into dissipation and drunkenness. 

There is such a thing as being too strict. In childhood and 
youth, curiosity is one of the predominating traits of the mind. 
This disposition to pry into every mystery and find out every 
thing that is going on is implanted in the youthful mind for a 
wise purpose. It urges on to the rapid acquisition of knowl- 
edge and experimental wisdom. Young people are always ex- 
perimenting, and in following this natural impulse or desire 
they necessarily fall into many pitfalls of error. But they will 
experiment in spite of every effort to prevent them from it, 
and in spite of all the pains they are made to suffer by their 
daring. Over pious people are inclined to restrain this nat- 
ural tendency of their children while they are able to keep 
them under their immediate control and supervision. When 
they get out from under such control, they usually make up 
for lost time, and in doing so, get the reputation of being 
worse than those who have been suffered to grow up without 
the usual restraints. A child should be allowed to learn by 



CAUSES OF DRUNKENNESS. 49 

experience while he is getting the benefit of the experience of 
others. The idea of raising a boy to be twenty-one years old 
without permitting him to experience the taste of whisky, or 
to know its peculiar effects, is more absurd than otherwise. It 
is better that he learn all that his curiosity may lead him to 
find out before he passes beyond the pale of parental control. 
Next to what may appear to some a morbid curiosity, which 
serves to lead the young into all sorts of mischief, may be 
ranked as a leading trait or characteristic of the youthful 
mind, is imitation. It is this inclination of the mind which 
causes the boy to take so much delight in building play 
houses, hitching up his little wagon, riding stick horses and 
yearlings, and doing a thousand things often extremely hazard- 
ous, which go to make up the miniature world that he lives 
in. It is this natural disposition to imitate the actions of grown 
up men which causes the boy to smoke cigarettes, chew to- 
bacco, swear, and indulge in all kinds of profanity of which 
he has so many pernicious examples before him. He is per- 
mitted to go upon the street at all times of the day, and often 
of nights, where he comes in contact with men who engage 
in these things. His first impulse is to imitate the example. 
The desire is greatly increased by the fact that he sees and 
hears other boys smoking, chewing and swearing. He thinks 
they look manly, because men engage in these habits, and 
when we see the inability of the boy to contemplate results, 
we must not attach so much blame to him for the contraction 
of bad habits as we may be often inclined. This inate dispo- 
sition to imitate grown people is implanted within him for a 
noble purpose. Without it his life would be out of harmony 
with society and with his surroundings. By the proper exer- 
cise of this imitative faculty he gathers many, if not all, of the 
graceful and ennobling traits of his character from the best 
models of human excellence, which are presented to his mind 
as worthy of imitation. By constant association with moral. 



50 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

refined, and intelligent people, he will naturally imitate their 
virtues. On the other hand, by prolonged exposure to the 
companionship of the low, vulgar, and vicious of society, he 
will intuitively and gradually assume their characteristic men- 
tal, moral, and social deformities. It is impossible for a pure 
stream to flow from a corrupt fountain. It is equally so for a 
pure character to be formed and maintained amid corrupt and 
villainous associations. That the individual will partake of 
the general character of his associates, is a rule with few, 
if any, exceptions. Otherwise, the discord would be intoler- 
able, and the companionship could not long exist. To return 
more closely to the subject before us, it is through this lead- 
ing faculty of imitation in the youthful mind that the boy, if 
permitten to choose the objects of its exercise from the low,, 
vicious and immoral, is led into habits of intemperance. His 
father, his uncle, or his fullgrown brother is a habitual smo- 
ker, and thinks nothing of setting the example before him. He 
is frequently thrown in the company of men and boys who in- 
dulge in this habit, which is, for the average boy, the first step 
to dissipation. He imitates the example, he smokes his ci- 
garettes, and feels as large as his father who puffs his flavored 
Havana. The habit becomes fixed, and by the time he is of 
sufficient age and discretion to contemplate results, or to fully 
realize the difference between a moral and an immoral action, 
between decency and indecency, he has entirely lost the 
power to overcome the pernicious habit. The same is true of 
the habit of chewing tobacco. The nervous centers become 
shattered and paralyzed. The system is fully prepared for 
the next step on the broad road to drunkenness and ruin. 

That chewing tobacco and smoking cigarettes invariably 
lead to the use of intoxicating liquros, is, by no means, 
true, as the experience and observation of us all must neces- 
sarily establish; but that they are a species of intemperance 
will be generally admitted by fair minded and unprejudiced 



CAUSES OF DRUNKENNESS. 



persons, even among those who are themselves addicted to 
such unseemly habits. The use of tobacco has a pernicious 
and demoralizing effect upon the nervous system. It is a 
passion, although milder and much les destructive in its na- 
ture than alcohol. It stimulates nervous action, and its pro- 
tracted use so affects the nervous centers that they become 
thoroughly upset and deranged, when the use of the stimulant 
is temporarily suspended, So severe is the effect upon the 
nervous system of the withdrawal of the stimulant that 
few are able to support it for a sufficient length of time for the 
system to return to its normal condition. 

Not long since the writer was a member of the General 
Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, in session 
at Sedalia, Missouri, when a resolution was introduced and 
discussed, the object and purport of which was to discour- 
age the use of tobacco in any of its forms by the ministry. 
Just before the resolution was put to a vote, an aged brother, 
palsied by the weight of years, arose to his feet and implored 
the Assembly, for his sake, not to pass the resolution. The 
tears rolled in great drops down his sunken cheeks as he re- 
lated his experience in his repeated efforts to break off the 
habit. He spoke feelingly of the trouble it had caused him, 
and of the many hours of earnest prayer he had spent in a 
fruitless effort to break the fearful spell that had enchained 
him for years. He said that he would be forced to abandon 
the church, in whose service he had spent the best years of 
his life, if it were intended by the resolution to force him to 
quit the use of tobacco, which he could not possibly do. The 
resolution did not go so far as the good old brother thought 
at the time, as it was not intended to be of binding force as a 
law of the church, but only an unequivocal expression of the 
Assembly upon that subject which has been so long overlooked 
in the effort to suppress King Alcohol. 

I come now to consider a branch of the subject in hand 



52 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

from which I am inclined to shrink by reason of a realiza- 
tion of my inability to do justice to its importance as the 
prime and immediate cause of so much drunkenness and the 
milder forms of intemperance prevalent in our country. I 
come now to speak of the objection that education does not 
always have the effect to destroy or diminish the desire for in- 
toxicating liquors, and to consider the reason why so many 
belonging to the intelligent and highly educated classes of our 
people become addicted to their intemperate use — to make 
plain, if possible, the mystery which puzzles the understand- 
ing of many who have never endeavored to unfold it by prob- 
ing into the interior structure of our social system. We take 
the example of a young man who has had all the advantages 
of correct moral training at home, has received his intellect- 
ual culture from the highest and best colleges, has perfected 
himself in the knowledge and practice of a learned and lu- 
crative profession. Socially, he stands upon the highest pin- 
acle of respectability. Wealth, honor, position, and all that 
human avarice, cupidity, and ambition could desire, are his 
in abundance. Perhaps he may have a lovely young wife and 
growing family to gladden his heart and make home happy 
and attractive. He is pointed to as a model of human excel- 
lence, is the pride of his family, and the central figure of a 
host of admiring friends. Ought he to drink? Will he do 
so?, and if so, why? What is it that can entice him away 
from the contemplation of his happy surroundings and finally 
drag him down to the level of the lowest outcast and drunk- 
ard — the low estate of the tramp and the vagabond ? His 
strange life, his rapid descent from the highest degree of 
human respectability to the lowest depths of disgrace, is the 
common remark and wonder of his former associates. Those 
who at one time courted his favors, who thought themselves 
honored by his recognition, pass him unheeded and unnoticed 
upon the streets. They may ask themselves what can be the 



CAUSES OF DRUNKENNESS. 53 

cause of the wreck of so grand a specimen of physical and 
intellectual manhood. They pursue the inquiry no further, 
and often go on heedlessly, regardless of the example before 
them, finally themselves reaching the same depths of human 
depravity. If you were to suggest to them the true cause of 
their friend's hopeless ruin, and intimate that they were trav- 
eling the same dismal road, and would themselves become 
drunkards and vagabonds like him, they would not hesitate to 
insult you, if they did not use personal violence to avenge the 
indignity offered to their honor and their standing. 

And right here I am going to attempt to solve this great 
mystery and explain this strange freak of human nature and 
character. It comes from the accursed, demoralizing and 
dangerous custom of social drinking and promiscuous treating. 
How long it has been customary to treat every body to strong 
drink as a token of friendship, liberality, or general good 
will, I have not the least idea. I do not know that its 
origin marks any distinct era in the history of moral deprav- 
ity. It is more than probable that it has gradually grown 
into universal custom along with other vices which have done 
so much to corrupt the morals and destroy the happiness 
of the people among whom they have become prevalent. But 
we are not so much interested in the question of when and 
how this prolific progenitor of drunkenness and wretchedness 
made its advent into our social system, as we are in the con- 
templation of its offspring of evil and human despair, beyond 
all possibility of description. Still more ought we to be in- 
terested in its ultimate destruction and banishment from 
society ; and when that is done there will be but little left for 
the exercise of local or general prohibitory legislation. Ask 
the palsied inebriate how it came to pass, and he will tell 
you that he never thought he would be a drunkard until 
he had gone so far on the downward road that he conld not 
turn back. He will tell you that he began by taking an oc- 



54 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

casional glass with his friends for the sake of sociability and 
that he unthoughtedly kept it up until the habit became fixed 
and his system demanded its continuance. He finally lost the 
power of controlling his thirst for liquor, and as a conse- 
quence is a hopeless wreck of his former self. Fashion abso- 
lutely controls the half, if not more, of human action. There 
is no one who is entirely free from its influence or independ- 
ent of its imperative commands. The dictates of fashion are 
far more arbitrary than statutory enactments of ecclesiastical 
proscriptions. The great mass of mankind will follow the 
fashions, if they know them, regardless of the laws of health 
or the reasonable restraints of morality and religion. So long 
as social dram-drinking and mutual treating have the impress 
of fashion or general custom, they will go on, to a large 
extent, in spite of law, in spite of moral persuasion, in spite of 
religion and of every possible restraint that can be used to 
prevent them. To 'be out of the fashion, with no small class 
of people, is to be out of the world. I have no doubt that 
there are many who would not hesitate to follow the dictates 
of fashion in preference to the dictates of conscience, at 
all times, when called upon publicly to make the decision in 
a practical manner. Rather than be laughed at as old 
fogyish and unfashionable they would willingly crush out 
every secret suggestion of the silent monitor within. - If 
fashion says drink it, conscience need not object. Down 
goes the deadly potion ; down goes the victim to ruin and 
disgrace. 

See the young man when he first launches out in the 
gay and giddy world of fashion. The first years of his life 
have been spent, perhaps, upon the parental farm. His week 
days have been passed amid the familiar scenes of plow-boy 
life, his Sundays hallowed by the sacred teachings of the 
country Sabbath-school and the practical and unsophisticated 
sermons of the village parson. His hours of recreation have 



CAUSES OF DRUNKENNESS. 55 

been passed in the enjoyment of the inoocent pleasures 
and amusements incident to country life. The allurements of 
the town or city draw him thither. He is at once taken into 
full fellowship by one of the soft handed gentry whose whole 
ambition has been to play a successful game at billiards 
and to pose himself as the champion dude of the city. The 
unsuspecting youth is invited to walk into a saloon near by 
and imbibe. He hesitates, but is told that he can not be 
"one of the boys " unless he yield to the pressing invitation 
to enter the den of vice, though with many doubts and mis- 
givings as to the propriety of the step. He thinks of his 
mother's parting words of warning which call him back, but 
the pressure is too strong for his feeble resolution. His 
seducers point to the screen which will shut out his action 
fromjhe cheerful light of day, and the hackneyed criticisms 
of the " old fogies" who may perchance take notice of his 
entrance. He is asked to take something, and when called 
upon to decide upon the strength of his first drink, of all the 
evils before him he endeavors to choose the least. He calls 
for lemonade, but is at once told that he must drink some- 
thing stronger ; nothing weaker than beer will suffice, and 
more frequently than otherwise he will be prevailed on to 
take "whisky straight." He is informed that social drinking 
is fashionable, and it is every word the truth. In that he is 
no wise deceived. He is furthermore reminded that it is not 
polite to accept a treat without setting them up himself. The 
first impulse of his manly nature responds to the suggestion; 
and — will it be necessary to pursue the illustration further ? 
It does not require the exercise of prophetic inspiration 
or the mysterious gift of an astrologist to cast the horoscope 
of his future career. The history of his life is no new history. 
It is one of those histories which are continually repeating 
themselves. It is one that will apply to thousands and 
hundreds of thousands of our unfortunate race. 



D 



6 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 



Not many years ago the social condition of Texas was pe- 
culiarly conducive to the promotion of drunkenness and all 
sorts of dissipation and rowdyism. Its population, though 
brave, generous, patriotic and hospitable, was made up of the 
bold, enterprising and venturesome classes of the older 
States. Many of them came to the wild prairies of Texas to 
seek refuge from the social restraints which an advanced civ- 
ilization had drawn around them. They had grown tired of 
these restraints and of the cold formalities incident to refined 
society, and having learned that in Texas they could find the 
longed-for relief, they bade adieu to the hallowed associa- 
tions of their youth, and came, buoyant with hope and the 
spirit of liberty, to a country in all things adapted to their 
restless and enterprising natures. Arriving in Texas, they at 
once laid aside the Procrustean system of ethics and good 
breeding under which they had grown up to manhood, and 
adopted the prevailing manners and customs of the early 
pioneers, which had been formed without reference to ap- 
proved examples. Coming as they did from all States and 
from all countries, and bringing along with them their cus- 
toms, their virtues, and their vices, a new social system par- 
taking in its general features of the systems of all of the civi- 
lized countries whose population was represented in the or- 
ganic structure of Texas society. That there were among 
these early settlers of Texas many refugees from justice, many 
who had dyed their hands in the blood of their fellow-men, 
many who had committed crimes of the most henious char- 
acter, many who were dissipated and immoral in their per- 
sonal habits, is too well known to the history of the early set- 
tlement of our State to be seriously doubted. That the gen- 
eral features of Texas society were quite angular and un- 
seemly at that time and for many years after the first settle- 
ment of the country, is well known, and especially was this 
fact appreciated by the people of the other States, who were 



CAUSES OF DRUNKENNESS. 57 

satisfied to stay where they were, and desirous that everyone 
else should do likewise. So thoroughly and indelibly was this 
fact impressed upon their minds that they have not till this 
day been made to realize and understand that the social con- 
dition of Texas at this time is not in the same condition that 
it was forty years ago, At that period the laws of the State 
were quite meager and defective, and even such -as existed 
were poorly executed, because of the inability of the moral 
element to enforce their penalties upon the law-breakers who 
were decidedly in the majority. Such a thing as a legal con- 
viction in the courts of the country was a thing rarely heard 
of, and the idea of sending a man to the penitentiary for 
stealing a yearling never entered into the mind of the most 
able and vigorous prosecuting attorney. It was regarded as 
no crime to wilfully and knowingly mark another man's year- 
ling; that is, if you did not get more of his than he did of 
yours on a final account. In the latter event compensation 
was made, and the matter was fully adjusted without resort to 
the civil or penal laws of the State. All other transgressions 
were looked upon with charity and forbearance, and especi- 
ally in homicides and all grades of assaults upon the person 
of another. For such offenses, the commission of which ap- 
parently indicated courage and bravery, there was always 
found a sufficient excuse to justify an acquittal. Only the 
premeditated, cold-blooded, and cowardly murders were pun- 
ished, and not then unless the proof was overwhelmingly con- 
clusive of guilt. A prosecution for assault with intent to 
murder usually resulted either in an acquittal or in a convic- 
tion of an aggravated or simple assault, most generally the 
latter when there was a conviction for any offense. To kill a 
man while under the influence of whisky was looked upon 
with feelings of pity and regret, and generally treated as a 
case of negligent homicide of the lowest degree. The reason 



58 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

for this condition of public sentiment is not difficult to under- 
stand. 

First, the perils of frontier life demanded that personal 
courage should be cultivated; and in order to its develop- 
ment deeds of personal daring and individual bravery must 
be rewarded and esteemed as the highest virtues and great 
skill and expertness in their despatch reckoned the highest 
accomplishment. Second, a people bound together by 
the constant realization of a common danger are more gen- 
erous and charitable to the faults of each other than they are 
in a state of comparative independence. They have great 
sympathy for the weak and unfortunate ; they are inclined to 
" bear the infirmities of their friends " and in no way disposed 
" to make them worse than they really are." And third, 
the standard of morality under such circumstances is much 
lower than it is in a high state of civilization and refinement. 
The word virtue was in Caesar's time synonymous with per- 
sonal bravery and daring. Indeed, the word itself in the lan- 
guage from which it is derived meant nothing more than in- 
dividual courage. In such condition of society as above de- 
scribed as prevailing during the early settlement of Texas, 
when the terrible results of drunkenness, the legitimate off- 
spring of the liquor traffic practically unrestrained by legisla- 
tive enactments, were lightly esteemed, and, in some degree, 
encouraged, it would necessarily be the case that the parent 
of these manifold vices would be regarded as no extraordinary 
evil, deserving legislative interference or social criticism. Be- 
fore social order had been fully established in Texas, the 
great Civil War came on and brought along with it those dis- 
turbing social elements which for a time put an end to the 
rapid progress of our civilization, and the country relapsed 
into a condition no better, if not worse, than it was in the 
years of its first settlement; in the days of the Regulators and 
the Moderators whose bloody career is well known to every 



CAUSES OF DRUNKENNESS. 59 

intelligent reader of our history. I can not stop to portray 
the moral, social, and material desolation which followed in 
the wake of that unfortunate struggle. Not the least of the 
vices which prevailed throughout the length and breadth of 
the State and the south was that of intemperance. It sprang 
up, and for years nourished I can not say, "like a green bay- 
tree," but like a moral incubus, which deadened every en- 
nobling impulse of our social system. 

This dread destroyer of human happiness and prosperity 
stalked abroad in every conceivable disguise, leading his 
bloody cohorts of crime and social disorder and destruction; 
making widows and orphans by the hundreds and the thous- 
ands; applying the torch to the homes and dearest interests 
of our downtrodden people, consuming not only their dilapi- 
dated fortunes, but every lingering hope of happiness that had 
been left them by the cruel fate of a war which, as they be- 
lieved, had already deprived them of every guaranty of their 
liberties that was worth fighting to maintain. 

I can not stop here to speak at length of the rapid progress 
that has been made since these sorrowful days; that history 
is known to the reader. I could not make it more plain than 
it must seem to every reasonable mind which will only take 
time to contrast the past with the present. I can not take 
time to speak at length of the common schools and the col- 
leges, the railroads and the telegraphs, the vast institutions 
which have sprung up as if by the wave of the magician's 
wand; the millions of people and the countless millions of 
material wealth; all the grand and glorious work which has 
been done, and its results having in view the development of 
our resources and the elevation of our moral and social con- 
dition. It is unnecessary to do more than to invite the read- 
er to walk upon the elevated platform of his own personal ob- 
servation and experience, and make a survey of the passing 
glories of the situation. Look around you and behold what 



60 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

a change has taken place during the last quarter of the cen- 
tury. Behold with a thankful heart what great things have 
been wrought around and about us! Then turn to the con- 
templation of the indescribable wretchedness of the inebriate's 
home, Then wonder why it is that so many noble specimens 
of our race are dying and weeping, starving and shivering 
from the dreadful ravages of a demon fostered and encouraged 
by the protecting care of a government claiming to be civil- 
ized and civilizing in its purposes and objects. The reader 
will then behold, and he can not escape from the picture, the 
strangest, most glaring inconsistency ever tolerated in an en- 
lightened government. Was this government made for the 
protection of all, or was it only intended for a few? Was the 
constitution framed with a view of conferring upon the whisky 
dealers of Texas the inalienable right to make paupers and lu- 
natics out of a large class of our people? If the proposition 
be established that the constitution can not rightfully be 
changed so as to protect the best interests of society at large, 
then must society forever remain at the mercy of the cormo- 
rants who are feasting upon its vitals and spreading desola- 
tion and ruin throughout the length and breadth of the land. 
It would be better to have no constitution at all, and that the 
dearest rights and interests of the people be committed to the 
caprice of every partisan legislature. 



OHAPTEE III. 



EFFECTS OF DRUNKENNESS. 

PHYSICAL, MORAL AND SOCIAL. 



In the preceding chapters I have endeavored to discuss 
briefly such of the causes of drunkenness as may be termed 
general in their character. To call attention to the many 
anomalous cases which may seem to be exceptions to the gen- 
eral rules regulating human conduct with relation to the sub- 
ject, or to proceed from causes which appear rather acciden- 
tal than otherwise, would require more space than is contem- 
plated by the scope of the discussion before us. Among these 
may be classed circumstances of domestic infelicity, sudden 
and repeated misfortunes, such as operate to destroy hope, 
and plunge the victim into the depths of despondency and un- 
utterable despair. There are doubtless many who from such 
causes have resorted to the fatal cup and gone down to the 
lowest depths of drunkenness, who, under other circumstan- 
ces, would have lived sober and usefullives. 

I come now to speak briefly of some of the effects of the in- 
temperate use of alcoholic stimulants upon the human sys- 
tem and upon society at large. I might, very properly, I think, 
leave out the word "intemperate" and let the discussion apply 
to the use of the article in any other way than as other pois- 
onous substances are administered in the treatment of phys- 
ical disease. That it has its proper place in materia medica, 
and that the alcoholic principle is necessary in the promo- 
tion of many of the useful arts, may. and perhaps must, be 

(61) 



62 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

fully conceded. The elimination of that one element in the 
composition of the universe of material things would doubt- 
less result in a general dissolution of organic matter, and the 
final extinction of animal life. The writer does not intend by 
the foregoing to even speculate upon the result of the utter 
destruction of that element in nature, which, through the me- 
dium of the distilling process, becomes the arch enemy of hu- 
man happiness — the fierce and ruthless destroyer of so much 
of human life and of human character. Nor would I pretend 
to say that the use of alcohol in medicine and in the arts may 
not be practically dispensed with by the substitution of some 
harmless preparation which can be used without danger to 
the race. But, be this as it may, I take the position that the 
human system in its normal state never demands or requires 
the use of alcohol as a beverage to any extent whatever. From 
the very best of medical authority I submit the following 
propositions: 

i, Alcoholic liquors are never necessaiy in health. 

2. They are always injurious to health, 

3. They are never necessary as a food for man any more 
than they are for the lower animals. 

4. They do not warm and give strength to the body, but 
diminish both. 

5. They do dot increase the power of resistance and the 
endurance of mental and physical fatigue. 

6. They do not increase mental vigor. 

7. They do not give tone to the heart, but the accelerated 
action, which is always temporary, is followed by a reduction 
of tenacity. 

8. They may for a short time increase nervous tension, but 
are followed by relaxation and debility, and the nervous sys- 
tem is more quickly worn out under their influence. 

9. They build up no tissues of the body, but in severe 
cases they cause a deposition of adipose tissue, which is a 



EFFECTS OF DRUNKENNESS. 63 

source of weakness and destruction to the heart and to all 
other muscles. 

10. They are specially harmful to brainworkers, who take 
but little exercise. 

11. They produce a tendency to appoplexy and paralysis. 

12. They are never necessary in a physiological condition 
of the system in any quantity, either large or small, but are 
often beneficial in disease, in which they should be prescribed 
by an expert. 

It will be seen from the above propositions, if correct, that 
the use of alcoholic stimulants is in no way beneficial to the 
system which is free from disease. 

It is also stated that it tends to produce a certain class of 
physical diseases. Nature is the greatest physician of them 
all, and if it were possible for the human mind to understand 
the language of her directions in the application of universal 
cure, and if it were possible for human resolution to curb the 
unnatural and perverted appetites and passions, and strictly 
to follow the directions of that great physician in the treat- 
ment of all human ailments, but a few generations would pass 
away before disease would be banished from the land, and the 
whole race of mankind would rejoice in perfect health and 
happiness. The warnings of nature to those who habitually 
violate her immutable laws are understood by few and practi- 
cally heeded by none. As the result of this, the worst of ig- 
norance and heedlessness, we have become a race of invalids, 
and a perfect man or woman is rarely, if ever, to be found. 
The use of alcoholic stimulants is contrary to nature. The 
pains the inebriate would thus allay are inflicted upon him for 
the purpose of informing and constantly reminding him that 
he has either wilfully or ignorantly transgressed some law of 
his nature, and if he is wise he will not cease to inquire of ev- 
ery available source of information until he has learned the 
cause of the timely warning, if it is discoverable. Instead of 



64 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

benumbing his sensibilities and shutting his eyes to the fatal 
consequences, if he is wise, he will seek an effective remedy 
for his ailment. If mentally depressed and cast down, he will 
do likewise rather than resort to the use of stimulants, which 
only serve temporarily to excite the brain and nervous sys- 
tem, which unnatural excitement and exhilaration is soon fol- 
lowed by greater prostration and depression. It is unnatural; 
it is injurious. 

Passing to the moral effects of intemperance, it is scarcely 
necessary to do anything more than refer the reader to his 
own experience and observation. It is not necessary to speak 
at length of the dreadful results of intemperance which are 
everywhere seen by the casual observer. Can any one doubt 
the evil results of drunkenness in a moral point of view, when 
he contemplates for a moment the great catalogue of murders, 
crimes, and misdemeanors it produces ? Will he be heard to 
say that it is harmless when he counts over the once happy 
homes it has destroyed ? Will he dare to assert that it is not 
the giant evil of the land, when he beholds the all but count- 
less hosts of women and children who are each year cast 
friendless upon the cold charities of a pitiless world ? Will 
he so degrade and prostitute his own intelligence, which God 
has given him for a better purpose, as to espouse the cause of 
this ruthless enemy of mankind, when he considers the great 
work of devastation and ruin it is carrying on all over the 
world ? 

Figures and statistics are altogether inadequate to express 
or describe the great work of material, moral, and social de- 
struction produced by this monster evil of our land and coun- 
try. And yet there are those all around and about us who 
say that the liquor traffic must go on. There are those who 
say that it ought not to be stopped. Many who say that it 
can not be checked and that there is no use to try to suppress 
the great evil of evils. There are always many who take for 



EFFECTS OF DRUNKENNESS. 65 

their motto in life "I can't/' and they go through life content 
to do nothing whatever to benefit mankind, because of that 
insuperable obstacle "I can't," which forever stares them in 
the face. A better motto is, "I'll try," and if it can not be 
accomplished in one way, it may be in some other. To find 
out the best way to accomplish the purpose is the duty of 
every one who desires to be useful in his day, and when he 
discovers the true plan he should bend his energies to put it 
into successful operation. 



CHAPTER IV. 



REMEDIES FOR THE EVIL INDEPENDENT OF LEG- 
ISLATION. 

EARLY TRAINING — PARENTAL INFLUENCE GOOD EXAMPLE — • 

WOMAN'S FREEDOM FROM THE VICE HER SPECIAL WORK. 



In the preceding chapters I have attempted to discuss firsts 
the erroneous methods so commonly adopted and pursued by 
the advocates of prohibition in the suppression and preven- 
tion of drunkenness; second, some of the causes which oper- 
ate to bring about and encourage the intemperate use of 
intoxicants; and, third, a few of the pernicious effects of in- 
temperance upon the physical, intellectual and moral con- 
stitution of man, with a bare suggestion of some of its terrible 
consequences to the social interests of mankind in general. 
In that discussion I have not attempted to exhaust the sub- 
ject. I hope, however, that enough has been said upon those 
branches of the great subject under consideration to form a 
sufficient basis for the proper understanding and appreciation 
of the practicability of the methods to be proposed in this 
and the future chapters of this work, for the suppression of 
drunkenness, the monster evil of the age. 

The complete suppression of this great evil can perhaps 
never be accomplished. Many generations will pass away 
before total prohibition can be effected by every possible 
agency that could be put in operation by the people, either 
in their legislative or individual capacities. Those who ex- 
pect to see so great a moral and social revolution in their day 

(66) 



REMEDIES FOR THE EVIL. 67 

are certainly doomed to disappointment. Nothing, save the 
intervention of divine power, wisdom and goodness in the 
regeneration of a besotted race, can accomplish such a revo- 
lution in a century, if in all time to come. What other 
agency can reclaim the fallen and lost manhood of the con- 
firmed drunkard who was ushered into this "breathing world" 
with a natural thirst for strong drink inherited from his an- 
cestors, and whose whole life has been given to the indul- 
gence of the all but insatiable desire for whisky ? That such 
men are going to have their daily and even hourly portion of 
the vile stuff may be put down as a certainty, that is, if its 
manufacture for any purpose whatever is permitted. The ab- 
solute and complete prohibition of the manufacture of intoxi- 
cating liquors need not be expected; it matters not how strin- 
gent the laws may be for its prevention or suppression, and 
when it is made, the topers are going to get it in some way, 
and they will not be long about devising the ways and means 
of procuring it. 

The first question, then, is, what should be done with this 
truly unfortunate and pitiable class of our people, whose 
name to-day is legion? They are rather deserving of sympa- 
thy than of censure, and since they are beyond all hope of 
redemption — beyond the reach of all human effort to reclaim 
them from their awful condition and avert the terrible destiny 
which most certainly awaits them — ought we not to do what 
we can to relieve their necessities, to provide for their protec- 
tion, and in every way possible endeavor to comfort them in 
their misery and despair ? Why does the State build and 
maintain at vast expense asylums for the care and treatment 
of almost all other classes of unfortunates, while no special 
provision is made for the confirmed and hopeless inebriate, 
who wallows insensible and oblivious in the mud and filth of 
the streets and alleys? It would seem, too, that, although no 
cure could be hoped for in such cases, their removal from 



68 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

their customary haunts and the influence of their demoraliz- 
ing examples would doubtless have salutary effect upon 
society at large. But, be this as it may, no method for their 
redemption will be proposed by the writer, and I desire it 
understood that whatever plans may be proposed and dis- 
cussed in this work shall have no reference to the confirmed 
and constitutional drunkard. Neither local, State, nor na- 
tional prohibition, high license, or free whisky can operate 
as even a temporary check upon his downward career to a 
drunkard's grave, and perhaps to a drunkard's hell, the con- 
templation of which has not the slightest effect upon his ap- 
petite or his actions. 

It was said of old by one who ranks in history as the 
wisest of mankind in all ages of the world, " Train up a child 
in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not de- 
part from it." To this rule, as well as to all others of a gen- 
eral character applicable to human conduct, there are, of 
course, exceptions. There are some incorrigible individuals 
who are so prone to do wrong, whose vicious passions and 
proclivities so far predominate over their moral resolution, 
that no training, however strict and conducive to the devel- 
opment of the higher moral sensibilities, is practically of any 
avail. But while this is true, it is, I think, safe to assume 
that the great majority of young persons are susceptible of 
the good influences of correct moral training. Alas, how 
great the number of our race who have grown up to man- 
hood without such training, but whose lives and characters 
have been molded and fashioned by chance, and that, too, 
after the most vicious and depraved models of society! How 
many have been permitted to grow up in utter and profound 
ignorance of their own capacities and of their own immortal 
destinies. How many have grown up in the unrestrained in- 
dulgence of every beastly appetite and propensity, while the 
mind and soul have sunk down to a level with the beasts of 



REMEDIES FOR THE EVIL. 69 

the field. How great the number whose intellectual faculties 
have been cultivated to their utmost tension, while the moral 
powers have smouldered amid the rubbish of vicious actions 
and ungodly purposes. 

The first question which arises, is, who is to begin this work 
of reformation ? Is it to be the legislator, in an effort to en- 
act and promulgate rigid laws for the punisment of those poor 
fallen victims to evil training, evil influences, and evil associ- 
ations? He has his duty to perform, which will be discussed 
in due time, but he is by no means the only one who should 
bear the responsibility of the work to be done. Napoleon 
once said that the one great need of France was mothers. 
The great men of all ages have conceded to the mothers of 
the land an influence in the promotion of a nation's welfare 
and prosperity above all others. It would take too long to 
attempt to enumerate the great characters in modern and 
ancient history which were the handiwork of a mother's in- 
fluence and devotion. From her the tender mind of the help- 
less infant receives its first impressions. The first touch in 
the formation of its character is by her loving hand. Its 
first sensibilities are awakened by the beams of her counte- 
nance as she keeps faithful watch over every motion of its 
tender features. By her are planted in childhood the first 
principles from which in after life are to spring so many of 
the noble or ignoble actions which are to mark the distin- 
guishing features of character and determine the extent of its 
usefulness and respectability. I shall not further attempt to 
speak of the mother's influence. It is beyond my compre- 
hension, beyond the power of my language to define or to at- 
tempt to describe. I only refer to it briefly for the purpose of 
impressing upon the mothers of our country the importance 
of the duties which God and nature have committed to them, 
and to arouse them to the necessity of training their chil- 
dren with a view of making of them examples of sobriety and 



70 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

usefulness. What thinking mother is there in the land who 
would not rather see her child laid low in the icy embrace of 
death than to know that it would live to be a drunkard, a vag- 
abond, and an outcast ? How many would sink into despair 
and death if they could unhappily foresee the future career 
and tragic end of the sweet little one whose childish prattle 
is now the pride and joy of their homes and hearts. To avert 
such a calamity should be the constant desire and thought of 
every mother, as she watches with so much solicitude the 
mental, moral, and physical growth of her darling boy. But 
the first thing for her to do is, to study and qualify herself 
thoroughly for the discharge of the important duty which de- 
volves upon her in the formation of human character. To do 
this, she must study closely the nature of children. She must 
know something of the physical, mental, and moral constitu- 
tions of the young, and must be able at all times to apply such 
knowledge in the practical training and development of the 
character of her offspring. While the influence of the mother 
in the formation of the habits and in the development of the 
inherent traits of character of the young can not be overes- 
timated, there are others whose influence in the word of mold- 
ing and shaping human character deserve some attention in 
connection with this branch of the subject. 

At an early age of life the boys pass from under the direct 
and immediate control and personal supervision of the moth- 
er, and from that time, which marks the beginning of the down- 
ward career of many, the father's example becomes a more 
important factor in shaping the course of their lives, and in 
the formation of their traits of character which are to insure 
their destinies for good or for evil. Good precepts are ben- 
eficial, indeed, quite indispensable, but they amount to prac- 
tically nothing unless accompanied by correspondingly good 
examples.^ I have often heard intelligent fathers reprove their 
boys, and not only reprove them harshly, but chastise them 



REMEDIES FOR THE EVIL. 7 I 

severely for chewing tobacco, swearing, and other even more 
flagrant improprieties, while at the same time they were them- 
selves guilty of the same things, and that too in the very pres- 
ence of their "young hopefuls,'' whom they would vainly at- 
tempt to reason, coax, and whip into obedience to precepts 
diametrically opposed to the logic of their own personal ex- 
amples. I have already mentioned the characteristic ten- 
dency of the youthful mind to imitate. The reader's own per- 
sonal observation must have long since taught him that imi- 
tative faculty in childhood and youth is among the very 
strongest incentives or impulses of nature. It is wise that it 
should be so, for reasons more fully alluded to in a former 
chapter which it is not necessary to review in this. And 
that is the special reason for the necessity for every one who 
may stand in so responsible a relationship as father, to look 
well to his own example. He should be careful to allow no 
action of his own in the presence of his son, or anywhere else, 
to belie the good precepts, the ennobling principles and rules 
of moral conduct which he may think proper to give in the 
discharge of his duty as a parent. These bad examples, which 
need not be here enumerated, are among the most prolific 
sources of intemperance and vice of every character, and the 
only prevention of the fearful results is to reform your own 
example, and make not only every word, but every action, 
correspond with the wholesome precepts you may give. If 
you are a father, you may reason with your boys about chew- 
ing tobacco, smoking, and drinking whisky, and may spend 
half your time in demonstrating to them by scientific meth- 
ods the evil results that follow such habits, and the other half 
in trying to persuade them to spurn them or to break them off. 
and yet the effort will be in vain so long as you indulge in 
these filthy and demoralizing habits yourself. Of course there 
are occasional exceptions to the rule, but I claim that it is 
true as a general proposition. Fathers, do you really want 



72 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

your boys to be sober and useful citizens? If you do, and are 
in earnest about the matter, I entreat you to become sober and 
useful yourselves. If you would keep your boy from defiling 
his lips with profanity, be chaste in your own language, and 
circumspect in your own conversation. If you would keep 
your boy from polluting his breath with the sickening fumes 
of the cigarette, which has become so common among the 
youth of the country, throw away your own sweet-scented Ha- 
vana, and by that one act of yours, a sacrifice though it may 
seem, you will do more in the way of bringing about a much- 
needed reformation than you can do in a whole lifetime of 
preaching what you do not practice yourself. Quit swearing, 
quit smoking, quit chewing tobacco, quit drinking, keep out 
of the saloons, keep out of the local-option drug stores. By 
this means you will do more for the glorious cause of temper- 
ance than you can possibly do by a continual discussion of 
the relative merits and efficacy of proposed laws for the sup- 
pression of drunkenness and the reform of other drunkards 
than yourselves. It is only to be wondered at and regretted 
that these truths are not more generally understood and prac- 
ticed by those who have so much to do with the formation of 
the characters and the ultimate determination of the immor- 
tal destinies of the youth of the country. 

How many disappointed hopes, how many broken hearts 
and blasted aspirations would have been spared had it not 
been for the damning and demoralizing influence of bad ex- 
amples upon shaping the conduct of the youth. A boy natur- 
ally believes, and perhaps ought to believe, that what his 
father does is right. The father's example ought to be, and 
ordinarily will be, the criterion by which he judges ot the 
conduct of other people. Nature, ever faithful and true to 
herself, has decreed it to be so. It comes to us with the 
sanction of holy writ in the form of the fifth commandment, 
"Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long 



REMEDIES FOR THE EVIL. 73 

in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee"; and this 
too, without the qualification that the father and mother shall 
be worthy of honor in the esteem of the party for whose gui- 
dance the injunction is given. It is nowhere found in that 
good book that the child may consider the parents' vices and 
moral deformities in determining the binding force of the 
obligation embraced in the commandment, or in the consid- 
eration of the question whether or not he ought to be ab- 
solved from its observance. The ordinary demands of society 
require that the son shall respect and care for his father, how- 
ever much he may fall below the respect of all other people 
who make pretensions to decency. A story is told with which 
many of my readers are, doubtless, familiar, but which I am 
constrained to relate by way of illustration of the truth at- 
tempted to'be enforced : A young man, engaged in keeping 
a saloon in one of the larger cities, was in the act of dragging 
an infirm and besotted old man out of his house by the hair, 
which was silvered by the impress of near four score years, 
when a stranger possessing the characteristic impulses of a 
gentleman, interfered and protested against the outrage being 
committed upon the helpless old man. The poor old man 
asked him to go away. Said he in faltering accents : "Forty 
years ago, when this man who seems to you so reckless, was 
a little boy, he saw me drag my old decrepit father out of this 
same door just as he is now doing with me. He is my son; 
I set the example before him; I am much more to blame for 
this act, humiliating as it may be, than he who is only follow- 
ing in the footsteps of his father, who ought to have set before 
him a better example." 

This picture may seem to be somewhat overdrawn in the 
estimation of those who have never thought seriously upon 
the force of example in the formation of character. Indeed 
it is a factor whose influence in shaping human conduct can 
not be over estimated. 



74 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

I now proceed to the consideration of the question why is 
it that drunkenness is a vice belonging almost exclusively to 
the masculine portion of the human family while in a state of 
civilization? Is there a natural constitutional tendency in 
man towards the intemperate use of intoxicating liquors, 
which is not common to woman ? If there is any such dif- 
ference in the constitutions of the two sexes, I am not at this 
time aware of it. Assuming that there is no such constitu- 
tional difference, then why is it that sobriety in man is the 
exception, while the reverse of the proposition is equally true 
with the opposite sex ? It is stated on good authority 
that 60,000 men go down into drunkard's graves annually, 
while statistics take no account of the number of women who 
go the same way. While there are, perhaps, a few (enough to 
make the necessary exception to the general rule) who have 
died from the effects of alcohol, and who may have been in- 
cluded in the 60,000 annual deaths from that cause, it will be 
readily conceded that drunkenness and even the milder forms 
of intemperance is not one of the "frailties of woman." The 
question naturally suggests itself to the enquiring mind, what 
is the cause of this ? And how is it that the female portion 
of the human race has been able to resist the fearful inroads 
of this insidious monster into the very heart of our social 
system? We speak of her frailties and of her weaknesses 
often without a feeling of charity or of pity, and yet she has 
ever been a giant in the contest with the demon intemperance, 
where men, strong in their own conceit, have proved them- 
selves contemptible pigmies. Ah ! and to-day if she were 
vested with the same political privileges that we are allowed 
by law to exercise, she would crush out the hydra-headed 
monster in less time than it would take the prohibition party 
of Texas to decide whether it is a political or a moral ques- 
tion. Whether woman's suffrage is right or wrong in princi- 
ple, expedient or inexpedient, need not here be discussed; 



REMEDIES FOR THE EVIL. 75 

but one thing will not be disputed, and that is, that if the 
women were allowed to vote, they would vote whisky clear 
out of the country by a very large majority. No thinking 
man will dispute this proposition. 

But, coming back to the original question, why is it that the 
women keep sober, while their husbands, fathers, brothers, 
and sons are all the time falling into drunkenness and ruin? 
How often do we see the poor, brokenhearted wife, as she 
leaves her cheerless fireside in the dead, cold hours of mid- 
night and strolls through the streets and alleys, from saloon 
to saloon, from grog-shop to grog-shop, in search of her drunk- 
en and worthless husband? Does she go there to engage with 
him in the degrading pleasures of the wine cup? No. She 
goes for another purpose. She goes as a messenger to bring 
back and reclaim the lost manhood of him who in times past 
pledged to her his solemn troth, and promised to defend and 
protect her, to provide for her wants, to love and cherish her 
above all others of earth. Would it not seem that if sorrow, 
if despair, if inexpressible misery and wretchedness should 
become a perfect excuse for drunkenness, that it ought to 
avail this poor, pleading, helpless woman, while she drowns 
the bitter recollections of former days of happiness and joy in 
the sparkling wine? Then why does she not drink away 
the sad reflections of her wretched condition, and cease to 
harbor her brood of corroding cares? 

In our social fabric there seem to be two standards of moral 
excellence; one for gauging the moral rectitude of man's con- 
duct; the other, altogether different, as I shall presently show, 
is used to determine the moral quality of the same kind of 
conduct when it pertains to woman. For instance, when a 
man feels depressed; is uncomfortably cold or unpleasantly 
warm; has had bad luck or has been unusually lucky, it is not 
regarded as anything wrong or out of the way for him to take 
one or two drinks. If he has had a great misfortune, or has 



76 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

"struck something rich;" if he has had a falling out with with 
his sweetheart, or if he has unwittingly married a termigant y 
he is quite justifiable; indeed, it is expected of him that he 
shall get drunk and "paint something red." When Christmas 
comes, good society demands that he shall "nog" himself up 
to a few "tones above concert pitch," and even the preacher 
will take but little notice of the impropriety if he should get 
"gentlemanly groggy." On the other hand, suppose a woman 
should, from any cause, voluntarily drink to intoxication,, 
what would be the result? Would she be able to survive the 
humiliation that would necessarily follow? Would society ex- 
cuse her for the ungracious act, even though she had been 
ruthlessly deserted by her lover, in whose life may have 
centered all of her earthly hopes and aspirations? If a wife, 
could she plead in justification or extenuation of her effense 
that her husband had maltreated her, that he had proved false 
to his marital vows, that his infidelity had plunged her into 
unspeakable despair? Oh, no. As longas she has one prompt- 
ing of self-respect, as long as she cherishes a single feeling of 
self-love, and regards in the least the worth of her good name, 
she will bear it all; she will suffer death rather than trans- 
gress a law of society, even though it operate so unequally 
upon the two sexes. This state of things, the existence of 
these two standards by which the moral character of an action 
is judged of according to the sex of the party who commits it,, 
is the only way I can account for the prevalence of drunken- 
ness in man, while woman is almost entirely free from the 
vice. While I would not lower the standard erected for the 
guidance of my fair friends, who have nobly lived up to its 
full measure, I would have the same standard applied to all 
alike. 

A laudable ambition on the part of woman is, to make her- 
self attractive, not only in her person, but in her mental ac- 
quirements and the sweetness of her disposition, that she may 



REMEDIES FOR THE EVIL. 77 

become the idol of a brave and manly heart, perhaps some 
day the brightest ornament of a happy home. To succeed in 
this, to maintain her high position in society, to be loved and 
admired by her associates and by her gallant suitors, she 
must be ever mindful of the spotless purity of her character, 
which must, at all times, be above the very breath of suspi- 
cion. She must be chaste in her language and circumspect 
in her actions. Suppose it should be said of her, while in the 
very midst of her victorious career in the conquest of hearts, 
that she drinks intoxicating liquors; that she keeps it in her 
closet and drinks it privately, although in great moderation. 
Suppose the least taint of the vile liquid should polute her 
virgin breath, though the flowing robes of her splendid ap- 
parel shed abroad the rich perfumes of the purest essence of 
roses? What, O, what would be the result if it should be 
truthfully said of her, " She is a drunkard?" The instanta- 
neous loss of every claim to respectability, irretrievable ruin 
and disgrace would certainly follow. No more would her 
beauty charm or her accomplishments attract the admiration 
of those who may have been before enchained by her be- 
witching powers. She would at once be stranded upon a 
barren rock, lost, hopelessly lost, to every prospect of future 
usefulness, happiness, or respectability. I cannot think the 
picture overdrawn. The very idea of a lady becoming a 
common drunkard is indeed appalling, and it will not be con- 
troverted that, should she give way to such a vice, she must 
at once assume her place among the very lowest of her sex. 
But how is it with man ? With him who, while he boasts 
of the superior force of his character, ought rather to be a 
fit sample for the weaker ? And, I regret to say, that for this 
strange and unfortunate state of society woman is not en- 
tirely blameless. It is within her power to fix the standard 
of morality and respectability which are to regulate the con- 
duct of the other sex. Her influence over the heart of man 



78 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

is transcendent. If she is disposed to do so, she can force 
the one who demands so much purity in her character to 
come up to the same high standard of moral excellence him- 
self. The power of love is beyond computation. What a man 
will not do for the woman he really loves may not be found 
within the range of human possibilities. If the women of our 
country would, with one accord, place the seal of their inex- 
orable disapprobation upon the character of the tippler and 
put the stamp of shame and disgrace upon the habit of drink- 
ing in any and all of its forms, it would not be long until 
drunkenness would only be known to the lowest and most 
vicious classes of society. If they would say to every young 
man who aspires to their recognition, "You must be sober. 
One drink, although it may be but a social glass, will operate 
to destroy our relationship and blot out our acquaintance"; 
and not only say it, but mean what they say, the reformation 
would be wonderful; the revolution would certainly be phe- 
nomenal. But instead of this, how often does it occur in this 
bright era of our civilization that the very fairest and loveliest 
of the land join themselves in matrimony with confirmed and 
habitual drunkards ? This is no uncommon occurrence. It 
is truly surprising, too, how lightly such an objection is often 
treated by those who thus plunge headlong into an unfathom- 
able abyss of despair and regret. But the example is also 
disastrous. It encourages young men to go on in their dissi- 
pation. They see others of their kind so highly esteemed 
and honored by the fair sex, and they keep on the downward 
road to a drunkard's lowly estate. Young lady, you need not 
preach temperance during the week while you spend your 
Sundays and leisure hours in the society of drunkards and 
tipplers. You need not deplore the sorrows of your once 
happy school-girl associates whose lives have since those 
halcyon days been blighted by the cruelty of their drunken 



REMEDIES FOR THE EVIL. 79 

husbands, when you encourage the serious attentions of a 
drunken suitor. 

In addition to what it is certainly within the power of wo- 
man to accomplish in the elevation of the standard of respec- 
tability among men, she may do much effective work in the 
way of the training of the young, and in the correction and 
purification of public sentiment in general. Long experience 
has proved her special fitness for the discharge of the respon- 
sible duties of a teacher. Her tenderly sympathizing nature 
enables her to exert a most happy and gracious influence 
over the minds and hearts of young people, and to entwine 
their childish thoughts and affections around and about such 
objects and examples as are conducive to their moral growth 
and development. Her influence in the school room is ever 
for good. Her moral teachings are always pure and ennob- 
ling in their tendency. She does not fail to implant in the 
breast of her little darlings a feeling of profound respect and 
veneration for the teachings of the Bible. She never makes 
of herself a medium for the spread of infidelity and scepti- 
cism. Her whole influence, which is beyond estimate, is 
thrown toward the side of religion and morality. It is not 
always thus with others. How much of the seeds of vice and 
ultimate ruin is sown by a certain class of teachers, it would 
be impossible to estimate. I have not time to particularize, 
nor am I disposed to do so, but will here be content to sug- 
gest that the deserving women of our State, should ever be 
encouraged in their desire to become useful as educators of 
the youth of our country. In the darker ages of the past it 
was thought that she did possess the necessary mental quali- 
fications for the work, especially as it pertained to the higher 
branches of learning, but the error is fast being dispelled, and 
the fetters which so long bound her to menial service, are 
being broken by the rapid progress of an enlightened and 
liberal public sentiment. It must be obvious to every think- 



80 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

ing, unprejudiced mind that she is rapidly advancing to her 
proper condition — the unqualified equal of man. Morally, 
socially, and religiously she is already by far his superior. 
As the world lays aside its barbarous notions, her sphere of 
usefulness will become more extensive. Her influence must 
grow more potential in the advancement of morality and tem- 
perance. Who can estimate the results of her efforts in the 
cause, though hampered as she has been by the opposing 
forces of prejudice and ignorance ? 

Look at the great work she has done in the organization 
and maintenance not only of temperance societies and orders, 
but in many others, having in view the amelioration of the 
condition of mankind. Wherever there is suffering, wherever 
there is distress, wherever there is destitution and despair, 
there may she be found like a ministering spirit, sacrificing 
herself upon the altar of her sympathy for the afflicted of her 
race. There are some who are disposed to speak lightly of 
her efforts to redeem mankind from the curse of intemperance. 
Then, there are some who are inclined to scoff and sneer at 
her for wasting her energies in the promotion of the cause 
which, above all others, so nearly concerns her own destiny 
and happiness. There are those who cry out in the language 
of a distinguished Texas Senator, addressed to the ministry, 
"Scourge her back" to the narrow sphere of her domestic op- 
erations. These are the sentiments of those who talk learn- 
edly of "personal liberty" in everything else, and particularly 
as it relates to any proposed remedy for the evils of drunken- 
ness and the ultimate suppression of the liquor traffic. To 
woman's ceaseless and united efforts in this cause may justly 
be attributed the beginning of the mighty revolution which is 
most certainly upon up, and which must, in time, sweep drunk- 
enness, with all its concomitant evils and misery, from the 
face of our country, even as the blight of slavery was lifted 
from American soil within the last quarter of a century. 



CHAPTER V. 



REMEDIES INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATION. 

THE CHURCH AND ITS MINISTRY THE SUNDAY SCHOOL. 



Since the days of the apostles there has existed through 
many vicissitudes of prosperity and adversity, an organization 
known as the Church of Christ, established by Him as the 
representative of His visible kingdom on earth. Fr^m the car- 
dinal doctrines upon which the great superstructure of the 
great Christian religion is based a diversity of theories and 
opinions pertaining to scriptural interpretation and church 
government have sprung up, giving rise to the many denomi- 
nations of christians known throughout the religious world. 
To the broad and liberal mind nearly all of the differences 
which have so long divided the church into hostile factions 
and into denominations, often bitterly and uncompromisingly 
antagonistic to each other, are altogether frivolous, and 
amount to little more than the distinction between "tweedle 
dum and tweedle dee." The dissensions that have so long di- 
vided and distracted the church, and in so many instances 
paralyzed its influence for good in the world, are but the out- 
growth of human weakness and bigotry. They have no place 
in the divine economy of the church, and it must be evident 
to every observing mind that these trifling obstacles in the 
way of religious progress are fast giving way to a more liberal 
and enlightened public sentiment. Such a thing as religious 
persecution; such a thing as the punishment of heresy or any 
character of interference with the freedom of conscience in 

(81) 



82 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

the matter of religious belief or opinion so common even with- 
in a late period comparatively — is now known and regarded 
as dark spots upon the pages of ecclesiastical history. That 
religious bigotry and intolerance are rapidly waning is too ev- 
ident to require discussion, even though it should be appro- 
priate in this connection. It is quite evident, too, that, while 
the various denominations of the church are becoming more 
reconciled to each other, and more nearly agreed upon essen- 
tials in religious faith and practice, they are a unit upon the 
great subject of prohibition, and in their determination to sup- 
press drunkenness and every form of intemperance. They are 
united in an aggressive warfare against the monster evils of 
the liquor traffic. In view of this great effort in behalf of re- 
ligion, morality and humanity, they are laying aside their de- 
nominational prejudices, their peculiar notions of baptism, 
final perseverance and apostasy, and organizing themselves 
into a solid phalanx to meet the common arch-enemy of the 
whole catalogue of christian denominations, the fierce des- 
troyer of the very foundations of their religious faith. I am 
aware that there are a few weak-kneed, "milk-and-cider" mem- 
bers of the church, who align themselves with the devil and 
the drunkards, and do valiant service in the ranks of the en- 
emy. There are those who go to church on Sundays, officiate 
in the Sabbath-School, contribute liberally to the preacher, 
and put themselves up as examples of purity, when occasion 
seems to justify or demand it, while at other times they may 
be found lounging about the saloons conspiring with the whis- 
ky element to thwart every effort or movement having in view 
the overthrow of the demon intemperance, and the ultimate 
suppression of the demoralizing traffic in liquor. There are 
others who are altogether neutral on the question, as they are 
upon every other issue which is of sufficient importance to di- 
vide public sentiment, and which might in the least affect 
their personal popularity and standing with the advocates of 



REMEDIES INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATION. 83 

both sides of the controversy. In other words, they are at all 
times ready to compromise with the devil on any and all 
moral questions, provided they can thereby at the same time 
retain the respect and good will of both the saints and the sin- 
ners. They are strictly neutral in all things, and independent in 
nothing. But, while there are such people in all churches 
and in all congregations, the great masses of the active mem- 
bership are in their capacity as citizens of a great State, with- 
out reference to church fellowship, reliable and uncompro- 
mising prohibitionists. They see that liquor is the great en- 
emy to their cause, the great impediment in the way of relig- 
ious and moral progress, and they feel it to be their duty to do 
what they can to destroy and suppress it in every legitimate 
way possible. They naturally favor every measure proposed, 
whether local or general in its extent, which has for its object 
the suppression or mitigation of the evil. And who will have 
the hardihood to say that they are not right? They can not 
do otherwise and be true to their profession, consistent fol- 
lowers of Christ and his teachings. 

It may seem harsh to some, but I believe that I will be sus- 
tained by all admirers of the plain and untarnished truth, 
that no man can have the right kind of religion in his heart, 
and at the same time be a sympathizer with whisky and in 
league with the beastly advocates of the traffic. A member 
of the church, be he Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or oth- 
er, who is so depraved in his ideas of a true christian life as 
to advocate liquor, or become an impediment in the way of 
prohibition and temperance, ought to be unceremoniously 
turned out of the church and forced to take his appropriate 
place along with the "beggarly elements of the world." Such 
a man has no business in the church. His example is a stand- 
ing rebuke to the religion he professes. Some people are dis- 
posed to reprove the ministers for using their influence to per- 
suade men to become sober and useful, and to take them es- 



84 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

pecially to task for expressing their opinion in the pulpit and 
elsewhere in favor of prohibitory legislation. 

When the able and eloquent Dr. B. H. Carroll, of Waco, 
Texas, in the exercise of a right and privilege vouchsafed by 
the constitution and laws to every American citizen, raised his 
voice in opposition to the terrible evils of intemperance and 
in favor of local option in his county, the county of McLen- 
nan, the great Senator Coke, styled by some, the oracle of 
Texas democracy, cried out in his stentorian voice, "Scourge 
them back into their pulpits." These memorable words of 
this distinguished man have echoed and re-echoed through all 
of the saloons and grogshops of Texas until this day, and have 
become the watchword of all the whisky combinations in the 
State in their disinterested (?) advocacy of personal liberty 
and death. That Senator Coke should entertain and express 
such sentiments is not at all strange and unaccountable when 
we consider the fact that when he was first elected to the high 
position he occupies with credit to himself, the whisky ele- 
ment in Texas was far in the ascendency, and had been from 
the first. His prolonged absence from the State while attend- 
ing to the duties of his office at the National Capital had pre- 
vented him from noting carefully the progress of public sen- 
timent in Texas in the direction of temperance and morality. 
Had the Senator halfway realized the change which was so 
fast taking place in public sentiment in Texas, and had he ev- 
er dreamed of the possibility of so great a revolution on this 
question as is now at hand, in all probability he would not 
have made the mistake. But, while the Senator has gone a 
little wrong on this question he should not be summarily con- 
demned and retired to obscurity because of a single mistake. 
An opportunity ought to be given him to repent; the door of 
the church should not be forever closed against the possibility 
of the voluntary return of this great and distinguished prodi- 
gal. The Senator has done too much for Texas to justify any 



REMEDIES INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATION. 85 

class of our people in dealing harshly with him. When fully 
convinced of his error, he will, no doubt, "acknowledge the 
corn.' , The prohibitionists of Texas can not afford to deal 
harshly with any, and especially with the great and shining 
political lights of the country. 

But, to return to the preachers and their special work in 
the cause of prohibition. They have a right, not only to 
vote, but to talk and work for the cause, and no one however 
high he may be in authority, has the right to " scourge them 
back" or dare to "molest and make them afraid." The 
people of Texas are not particularly interested in the false 
issue attempted to be raised, that is, whether it is a political, 
moral, or religious question ? It makes no difference what- 
ever, whether it belongs to the one, either of the others or all 
of them together. Practically, it belongs to them all, and 
you can not possibly separate it from either. It has much to 
do with religion, it has much to do with moral progress, it 
has much to do with the politics of the country, and there is 
but little difference in degree. It is a question between right 
and wrong as applied to human conduct. It can be de- 
termined to the satisfaction of any unbiased mind by the ap- 
plication of the standard furnished by any or all of the three, 
religion, morality and politics, and the doctrine of statutory 
prohibition will be fully sustained. The preachers and the 
churches are entirely right when they say that it is a religious 
and moral question, and the statesman is also right when he 
insists that it is a political question. As a religious or moral 
question, no one will deny that the church and its ministry 
have a right to deal with and discuss it ; the politicians and 
the people, including preachers and church members gen- 
erally, have an equal right to discuss it as a political question 
affecting the temporal welfare of the people at large. Let the 
preachers preach temperance and prohibition; let them talk 
it ; let them act it; let them vote for it, and, if possible, in- 



86 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

duce by persuasion or otherwise their membership and all 
others to do likewise. 

In this connection I can not overlook the influence of the 
Sabbath-school as an instrumentality for the promotion of 
the good cause, especially among the young people. The 
older ones could all profit by becoming constant attendants 
of the Sunday schools of the country. If all of the children 
and young people could be brought within their christian- 
izing influence and could be made to understand the impor- 
tance of a thorough knowledge of the teachings of the Bible, 
and to feel the necessity of cultivating the moral faculties as 
well as the development of the intellectual and physical, the 
progress of society would be wonderful indeed. This would 
be the result without regard to the special efforts that might 
be made in those schools of morality and religion, to incul- 
cate in the youthful mind a due appreciation of the evils of 
intemperance, and of the benefits and blessings arising and 
flowing from a life of sobriety. Perhaps no other surround- 
ings are more favorable and conducive to the promotion of 
temperance and those incident to the Sunday schools 
throughout the land. It is probable, however, that this one 
important feature has not heretofore received that attention 
at the hands of the superintendents and teachers as its im- 
portance certainly demands. If the boys can be taught and 
persuaded to detest drunkenness, to despise the saloons and 
their gaudy attractions, and to live sober through life, they 
will have learned a lesson which will do them more good 
than all the philosophy of the age. If they fail to learn this 
lesson, and to strengthen their resolution to a point which 
will enable them to profit from their knowledge of its truth, 
they will with a few exceptions, be worthless to themselves 
and useless to the world, although they may have the wis- 
dom of all the renowned scientists of the age. What is 
science, what is wisdom, what is " wealth and fame and all " 



REMEDIES INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATION. 87 

to him who has become the crouching slave of the wine cup? 
Did you ever see the brilliant genius prematurely cut down 
in his career ? Did you ever behold lying oblivious in the 
gutters, a man who seems to be fashioned for greatness ; who 
may have led victorious armies and controlled the destinies 
of nations, and not be made to feel the wonderful power of 
this insidious and remorseless enemy of mankind ? Could the 
boys of our land only be made to feel and realize this ac- 
cursed power of whisky to destroy their every aspiration to 
become great before they fall into its deadly coils, what an 
improvement would be the growing generation upon the one 
which is now passing away. 

Let us teach temperance in our Sunday school classes. 
Let us endeavor to teach and persuade those bright-eyed 
boys, placed in our charge to beware of the temptation; to 
be sober, useful and happy. Not only that, but let us who 
are teaching do what we can to check the use of tobacco, 
this incipient tendency to dissipation which crops out so 
early in the boys and is evidenced by the smoking of cigars 
and cigaiettes. I tell you that cigarette smoking in boys is 
but an index pointing to a weakness which can not and will 
not brook the temptation to drink when they become older. 
It indicates a disposition to imitate vicious examples, and a 
dangerous susceptibility for the contraction of bad habits. 
Every instrumentality ought to be brought to bear to check 
this dangerous tendency in youth. 



CHAPTER VI. 



REMEDIES INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATION. 

INDIVIDUAL EFFORT. ORGANIZED EFFORT. 



Having suggested in the foregoing pages a few thoughts 
pertaining to the special work of those persons whose pe- 
culiar social condition, occupation or calling is such as 
seems to require at their hands such special work in the 
cause of temperance and prohibition, I desire now to speak 
generally of the good influence all persons, irrespective of 
classes, may exert in the correction of some evils and in the 
elevation of public sentiment, which is indispensably neces- 
sary to the success of any movement in that direction. In a 
government like ours where the people exercise the powers 
of sovereignty, public sentiment is practically supreme. It is 
above legislative enactments, and above constitutional lim- 
itations and restrictions. If prohibitory enactments are to be 
enforced, they must be put into execution by the people 
through their agents and representatives who are the officers 
of the law, and by themselves, in their capacily as jurors, a 
trial by jury being guaranteed by the Constitution itself. It 
may be humiliating to an American citizen to know it, but it 
is nevertheless true that laws contravening the strong current 
of public opinion can not be enforced by any system of juris- 
prudence which can be devised. Not only will jurors refuse 
to enforce such a law, but officers and courts, regardless of 
official oaths and the sacredness of the judicial ermine, will 
in every way possible, (and the ways are numerous), screen 

(88) 



REMEDIES INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATION. 89 

the offender against the penalty of a law which public senti- 
ment pronounces unjust and oppressive. And this is why 
prohibitory laws are so often practical failures in the sup- 
pression of the evils of intemperance. 

Every person, however humble he may be, and however 
insignificant he may feel his influence to be, can do some- 
thing toward the elevation of public sentiment and the cor- 
rection of this great popular evil. We are all responsible for 
the influence which we exert. We are indeed " our brothers' 
keepers," and it is our duty to so demean ourselves in our in- 
tercourse with the world that others, instead of being the 
worse for our example shall be the better for the good influ- 
ence we may exert upon the formation of their habits and 
their characters. Above all, we should do everything in our 
powe^, by precept and example, to discourage the evil of 
drunkenness and intemperance in all of their hideous forms 
and disguises. 

The cause of temperance has, perhaps, suffered more from 
the intemperance of its advocates than any other movement 
in the interest of humanity. What I mean by intemperance 
in this connection is, not the excessive use of intoxicating 
liquors, to which the term is most usually applied, but to the 
intemperate use of the tongue. No greater mistake is made 
than to suppose that bitter words and the application of per- 
sonal abuse can effect anything in the suppression of the evil. 
There is implanted in every bosom a spirit of resentment 
which will ever assert itself when not held in check by cring- 
ing fear or some greater opposing) force of human nature. 
The veriest coward on earth feels the impulse of resentment 
when he is made to realize that an injury has been inflicted 
upon him, and he is only prevented from acting upon such 
impulse by the sense of fear, which effectually counteracts 
his desire of revenge. The brave man, however depraved 
may be his moral sensibilities, and however low may be his 



90 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

standard of right and respectability, stands ready at all times 
to resent an insult or indignity intentionally offered to his 
person or to his own perverted ideas of manhood and 
personal honor, He might be the keeper of a saloon, a dog- 
gery, or any other sink-hole of immeasurable iniquity, and 
yet be very susceptible of feeling and appreciating an insult. 
Indeed, a man who has no feeling of resentment in his nature 
is not apt to do very much good or evil in the world, and it 
is doubtful if it is worth the trouble of an effort to reclaim or 
suppress him. We assume that we have to deal with men 
engaged in this nefarious business who have like passions as 
others who are engaged in the ordinary avocations of life. 
Such being the case, they must be influenced, if at all, just 
like other people are influenced to do right. Take yourself 
for an example. Suppose that you were engaged in a busi- 
ness, or that you were in the habit of doing certain acts which 
are not right in the estimation of other people. It may be 
that you have never been made to see the immorality of the 
business or of the particular action complained of, and that 
no compunctions of conscience have ever suggested to your 
mind the idea of the commission of a wrong not cognizable 
by the criminal code of the State. Suppose that your neigh- 
bors begin to say hard things about you in your absence; 
suppose that they denounce you as a villain, and abuse you 
without stint to every body in the community, and to every 
stranger who may perchance be passing through. Suppose 
they should publish in the newspapers that you were a crim- 
inal and that you ought to be drummed out of the country, 
and all this without their saying a word to you in kindness in 
regard to your conduct. Say that all of these epithets had 
been poured out upon your head before any effort had been 
made to convince you of the error of your way. The first 
impulse which would naturally arise in your bosom would be 
that of resentment. A desire to reform would be among the 



REMEDIES INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATION. 91 

last. Your determination would then be to show them that 
you could not be forced into measures or into the adoption 
of a different line of conduct, and especially if the act com- 
plained of is not prohibited by the penal laws of the country. 
In other words, you would then feel rather inclined to con- 
tinue your course for spite, although you should have to pay 
dearly for its gratification. Such is human nature the world 
over, and there is no use to attempt to ignore it in dealing 
with those engaged in the liquor traffic. 

It is to be regretted that this truth is so often lost sight of, 
not only by individual temperance workers, but by temper- 
ance associations and conventions which are so foolish as to 
pass resolutions of a character which provoke the very strong- 
est feelings of resentment on the part of the opposition and its 
sympathizers, without the slightest possibility of accomplish- 
ing any good results whatever. All of such foolishness should 
be stopped. Nothing but kind words should ever escape the 
lips of the temperance advocate. He need not be afraid to go 
among the saloon-keepers, nor even into their places of bus- 
iness, if necessary, and reason with them upon the subject. If 
he will conduct himself as a gentleman, they will listen pa- 
tiently to hio argument. If he will make them know and be- 
lieve that he feels an abiding interest in them personally, and 
that he wishes them well in the world, that the only objection 
he has to them relates to the nature of the business they are 
following, he will now and then make a convert. Otherwise 
he can not hope to do so. 

No man can be villified into a correct line of conduct. If 
he is induced to adopt it, it is by the influence of reason and 
persuasion. And so it is with whisky men, both the seller 
and the drinker. You can not make a man sober by calling 
him hard names. You can not stop the whisky seller from 
making drunkarks by calling him a villian and a devil incar- 
nate. Oh, no! That will never do. "A little word in kind- 



92 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

ness spoken" will do more in the way of reform than a whole 
volume of abuse. By dealing kindly with those, not always 
totally depraved, but certainly deluded people, you need not, 
in order to be consistent, endorse the moral character of the 
accursed business they are following. It matters not how se- 
verely you may denounce the liquor traffic in general, nor how 
many uncomplimentary, or even abusive remarks you may use 
so they are in the bounds of decency and propriety, when 
called upon to express your individual opinion upon the pol- 
icy of the government in the license of an acknowledged 
wrong, the endorsement of iniquity and the encouragement of 
an evil which is daily and hourly preying upon its own vital- 
ity. I can think of no expression whose severity is at all ad- 
equate to the proper denunciation of such a wrong, such a 
palpable inconsistency in legislation; but, while this is true, 
and while I heartily despise and detest the business of the sa- 
loon-keeper, I would not wantonly or intentionally offer him 
a personal insult, or say anything whatever that might, by ex- 
citing his passions and prejudices, destroy or weaken any pos- 
sible wish or desire to reform and turn from the error of his 
way that might perchance be slumbering in his bosom, I would 
rather study to find out, if possible, the better part of his na- 
ture, and make an honest effort in the interest of humanity to 
save him from the thralldom which, most certainly, awaits 
him along with the hosts whose lives he is blighting and des- 
troying in the pursuit of a legal, though iniquitous and dis- 
honorable calling. 

I would not abuse and villify him as a man. It is worse 
than useless to do so. It only sinks him lower and lower in 
the depths of his own'shame and degradation and impairs his 
ability and inclination to reform. And the poor, pitiful, and 
helpless drunkard! what can we do for him ? How shall we 
contribute anything towards his comfort or his cure of the 
terrible disease*which is so fast destroying his intellectual, 



REMEDIES INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATION. 93 

moral and physical manhood ? Should we pass him by as if 
he were a soulless beast of the field, left on the dreary way- 
side to die from the remorseless blasts of the winter's wind? 
I do not think so. I do not believe that these unfortunates 
of our race ought to be entirely neglected and left to perish 
alone and unwept as so many of them do in the slimy, sicken- 
ing gutters and slums of the city, so much of whose boasted 
wealth and power has been wrought out by the liquor traffic 
from the decaying fortunes, desolated homes, and the ruined 
hopes and aspirations of an honest and unsophisticated yeo- 
manry. Ah ! How many of the drunken, falling wrecks of 
humanity we see around us could tell a true story of their 
descent from affluence and prosperity to the low estate of a 
tramp and a vagabond that would be indeed stranger than 
fiction ! Many of them, though clothed in villainous garb, 
though friendless, powerless and penniless, have within their 
breasts, though smouldering amid a neglected heap of wither- 
ing and remorseful remains, the noblest principles and in- 
stincts of true manhood. While we may not by our kindness 
be able to redeem them from the lost and miserable condition 
into which they have been led by the allurements of the re- 
lentless demon into whose power they have fallen, we can at 
least do something to alleviate their sufferings and to comfort 
them in their despair. Occasionally the confirmed and ap- 
parently hopeless drunkard has been restored to his lost man- 
hood, and if I could only feel and realize that through the in- 
fluence of my kindness and sympathy I had been instrumental 
in the permanent restoration of one I should feel amply re- 
paid for every kindly action and sympathetic word I may 
during life be able to bestow upon that truly pitiable and un- 
fortunate class of our people, whose name to-day is '-legion 
of legions." 

I have already in a former chapter suggested that the gov- 
ernment ought to make special provision for them. But the 



94 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

great opportunity for the exercise of individual as well as 
combined effort in behalf of the great cause of temperance is 
in the preservation of the young men of the country, so many 
of whom are slowly, but surely, marching onward, not upward, 
but downward, to the valley and shadow of intellectual, mor- 
al, and physical death, keeping pace with the oblivious hosts 
in whose deadly wake they are unconsciously following. 
Reader, do you drink intoxicating liquors. If so, let your 
first effort in behalf of temperance and practical prohibition 
be upon yourself, and if you find that you are unable to gain 
the mastery over the spell which binds you to the fatal wine- 
cup, call in all of the assistance within reach, and pray God 
to aid you and your friends in saving you from drunkenness 
and disgrace, before it is everlastingly and eternally too late. 
If you have yourself gone beyond the dead line and you feel 
and realize that you are hopelessly lost, then do what you 
can to atone for your sins and disgrace by warning others of 
the danger and doing what you can to persuade them to re- 
turn to sobriety, industry, and usefulness. 

Whether you are so far advanced or not, have the man- 
hood, goodness of heart and respect and love for common 
humanity to refuse to be instrumental in leading others who 
are unsuspecting in their nature, into the awful condition into 
which you have fallen. If you must drink yourself, do not 
for God and humanity's sake, persuade others to do likewise. 
Rather sneak into the saloon and drink by yourself, and have 
" all the boys " deride you for selfishness and illiberality, 
than to be in the least instrumental in the encouragement of 
another, and especially if he is young and hitherto unpolluted 
by the vile stuff, to cultivate this dangerous appetite for 
liquor, If you have been so fortunate as to escape the evil, 
if you have had the nerve and the resolution to resist the 
manifold temptations which have beset your pathway and 
to live a sober man, do not go around over the country dis- 



REMEDIES INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATION. 95 

gusting other people with boasting of your triumph. Be not 
like the pompous Pharisee, who stood up in the most public 
place he could find, and thanked God that he was not like 
other men with a heart vile, unworthy, deceitful above all 
things, and desperately wicked, but rather be like the poor 
Publican, and while you acknowledge your own frailty and 
weakness, do what you can, however humble the effort to 
strengthen others by your own example, and in every way 
endeavor to reason with and persuade them to forsake the er- 
ror of their way, live sober, and be useful, happy and con- 
tented. Let every effort you make in behalf of sobriety be 
characterized as it should be prompted by a spirit of love 
and a sincere regard for the true interests of humanity. 

" The harvest is ripe and the laborers are few." There is 
an abundance of work for every one to do in the great war- 
fare which is before us. No one need to fold his hands and 
say " there is nothing for me to do." The work of over- 
coming and destroying this monster evil, this, the greatest 
enemy of mankind, the devil not excepted, is no child's play. 
Every true man, woman and child, throughout the length and 
breadth of this besotted land is expected to do their utmost 
and entire duty in the struggle. If they will only come to 
the rescue, there may yet be hope for the ultimate salvation 
of our people from the clanking fetters of a slavery a thousand- 
fold more galling and intolerable than have ever been forged 
for the vanquished and oppressed by the tyranny of all ages 
of the world combined. It was Burns, nature's poet, who said: 

" Man's inhumanity to man 
Makes countless thousands mourn." 

This is true, but can man's inhumanity at all compare with 
the numbers of its sorrowing and mourning victims with the 
demon alcohol, who is each day of the world's existence 
making countless millions send up the sad, tearful wail of 



96 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

their pent up sorrow and unutterable despair ? Is there left 
in your bosom, my dear reader, one spark of the love of 
humanity, a single impulse of self-sacrificing charity, one 
lingering sentiment of true patriotism ? If so, then arouse at 
once from your lethargic repose and indifference, and go to 
work with ail your might and main in an effort to check the 
onward march of this dread enemy to every human interest, 
hope and aspiration. Do what you can, however weak and 
inconsiderable you may conceive yourself to be, however 
lightly you may esteem your own personal influence, to stay 
the dreadful ravages and wide-spreading desolation that 
mark the progress of the damnable career. 

Before closing this chapter I desire to speak briefly of the 
benefit of consolidated effort that leads me to review the work 
and influence for good accomplished by the organization and 
maintenance of temperance socities. The fable of the old 
man and the sticks is familiar to many, if not all, of my read- 
ers, and may serve to illustrate the thought intended to be 
conveyed in the discussion of this important branch of the 
subject. An old man who had several sons, none of whom 
had perhaps ever learned the value of domestic harmony and 
concert of action, gathered up a large bundle of small sticks, 
which he bound together with twine. He passed the bundle 
thus bound together to each of the sons, beginning with the 
youngest and weakest, and bade them break it if they 
could. Each in turn gave a trial of his strength, and not one 
of them was able to break the bundle of sticks. He then un- 
bound it and divided them out among his sons; he told 
them to break them in pieces. This they accomplished al- 
most without an effort. He then impressed upon them the 
important lesson which he wished to teach by this simple il- 
lustration, the great value of union — the maxim that "in union 
there is strength." This maxim is particularly true when ap- 
plied to human action and individual resolution. The great- 



REMEDIES INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATION. 97 

est cowards often become brave and full of courage when 
cheered by the presence of others engaged in the same haz- 
ardous undertaking. How often was this fact demonstrated 
upon the battlefields of the late war. There were thousands 
of soldiers on both sides of the conflict who fought bravely 
and gallantly, distinguishing themselves on many a bloody 
field, who, at home, engaged in the peaceful pursuits of life, 
had not sufficient personal courage and manhood to resent 
the most flagrant insult or injury; who were everywhere known 
to be arrant cowards who would not fight single-handed and 
alone under any circumstances whatever. I know many my- 
self whose cowardice at home was such that every one thought 
when they went off to the war that they would be certain to 
desert on the first smell of gun-powder, but who returned cov- 
ered all over with glory on account of their personal bravery 
and soldierly bearing. The wonder was, how it could be so, 
but it is not so hard to understand after all. It is, I think, at- 
tributable to the fact that individual resolution and personal 
courage are strengthened and inspired by the association of 
others exposed to a common danger. Besides, the great mass 
of the common soldiery are but followers, and while a man 
may fight valiantly under the leadership of his captain, he 
may have none of the elements of a commander himself, and 
would never fight upon his own personal responsibility. And 
so it is with the great mass of mankind to-day, and in all ages 
of the world. There are, and in the very nature of things can 
be, but few leaders in society in any of its phases, or in any of 
its enterprises, whether political, social, or moral. The ma- 
jority are content to be followers. They are ready to take 
their places in the ranks, and while they may be always crit- 
cising the conduct or judgment of their leaders, they have no 
vaulting ambition to become leaders themselves. With all 
their complaining they constitute the great body of the com- 
mon soldiery, and are indispensable to the success of every 



g8 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

moral, social, or political revolution Individually, they will 
do but little, if anything, of value to the great cause, but or- 
ganize them into bands and societies, and they are a host. 
They will fight bravely and effectively for the cause in which 
they may enlist, and get enough of them together and they 
will come off victorious. 

There is no estimating the good which has been accom- 
plished by the many temperance organizations throughout 
the length and breadth of the country. I can not undertake 
to enumerate them, or to give even an epitomized history of 
their labors in the great cause of temperance reform. But I 
must speak of the work of one council of the The United 
Friends of Temperance, with the history of which and its re- 
sults, I was at one time personally familiar. About the year 
1873, when the Texas & Pacific railroad was completed 
through Kaufman county, a little town sprung up in the 
north-western part of that county, which was named Forney 
after a high official of the railroad company. Among the 
first business houses that went up in the new town, was a sa- 
loon of the doggery type. The morals of the neighborhood 
were by no means good previous to that time, but for a while 
after the town was started it was everywhere regarded as 
among the hardest places in North Texas for its size and lim- 
ited opportunities. It so happened that about the time the 
town started, a few young men settled there who had for years 
been consistent and active temperance workers, had long 
been prominent as members of The United Friends of 
Temperance. They went to work and gathered together a 
small band of workers, and organized a council at Forney. 
They kept it up, increasing the membership to a hundred or 
more, giving periodical celebrations and exhibitions, and in 
every way using the society in the education of the people. 
Prominent of these faithful workers I remember the names of 
the Shands boys, J. VV. Walker, now member of the State 



REMEDIES INDEPENDENT OF DEGISLATION. 99 

Central Prohibition Committee, and Rev. E. B. Thompson, 
the latter of whom was perhaps the first among this gallant 
band. There were many others whose names I do not now 
call to mind. It was many years before they had worked up 
such a sentiment against whisky that they felt satisfied that 
they could carry local option. They brought on the election 
and carried it by a small majority. There were two saloons 
in full blast at the time. They closed up and the proprietors 
moved away. They kept up the council ; they kept up the 
enthusiasm. One year afterwards they carried local option 
again by an increased majority. To the influence of that one 
society Forney owes her freedom from whisky and much of 
her material prosperity, which has been truly phenomenal. 
In the next chapter I will discuss the local option law and its 
practical results. 



OHAPTEE VII. 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 

LOCAL OPTION. 



The constitution of 1875 has an article or section provid- 
ing a method for the qualified voters of any town, precinct, 
or county, to decide for themselves whether or not the sale 
of intoxicating liquors and medicated bitters producing in- 
toxication shall be permitted in such districts, and makes it 
incumbent upon the legislature to pass such laws as may be 
necessary for carrying into effect the provisions of said article 
of the constitution. This is called the local option law, be- 
cause the law can only be called into effect at the option of 
a majority of the people of such locality, which can not em- 
brace a larger scope of territory than that of a single county, 
whatever may be its area or population. In compliance with 
the constitutional requirement, the State Legislature at its 
first session after the adoption of the present constitution 
passed the general law, which has been in force in Texas 
since the latter part of the year 1876. From the date of its 
passage there has been a certain school of lawyers, who have 
assailed the provisions of the general law as in contravention 
to the spirit, if not the letter, of the organic law of the land, 
and have time and again attempted to maintain their position 
before the appellate courts of our State. They have ably 
presented before our courts of last resort every conceivable 
objection that can be urged against the law with a view of 
destroying its force and operation, and of breaking down 

(100) 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. IOI 

every barrier it interposes to the death-dealing sway of the 
liquor traffic. They have as often been disappointed, and 
having failed to convince the highest courts of the correct- 
ness of their position, they have appealed to the "time-hon- 
ored principles of the Democratic party," and to the preju- 
dices of our people. They go out upon the stump and make 
long-winded speeches, reminding the dear people who have 
so long been devoted to the very name of democracy, that 
their fathers, their grand-fathers, and ancestors reaching back 
to the days of Christopher Columbus, enjoyed the inalien- 
able, God-given right to sell whisky and scatter abroad the 
seeds of internal discord and destruction, which have produ- 
ced in abundance a crop of wars, misfortunes, and miseries 
beyond the power of human imagination to conceive or to 
describe. These legal wiseacres and professional demagogues 
with their quasi legal and political sophistry, have done much 
towards establishing in the minds of our very best citizens the 
strangest legal paradox known to an enlightened jurispru- 
dence, the unconstitutionality of the constitution. Nor is 
this the only glaring and flagrant inconsistency in their high- 
sounding arguments in opposition to the law and in favor of 
personal liberty, every infringement upon which is an inter- 
ference with a man's natural right to do as he pleases, re- 
gardless of the rights of his fellow-men. The argument leads 
us at one step to an absurdity. It leads us at once to the 
abrogation of all law, the instantaneous return to hopeless 
and inevitable anarchy. The very object of all law is to in- 
terfere with personal liberty. What other possible object 
could it have ? 

If personal liberty is to be the supreme law of the land, 
what can be the need of constitutions, what need of statutes ? 
If a man can plant himself upon his natural right to do as 
he pleases, and measure the constitutionality of a law, though 
it be a part of the organic structure of that instrument itself. 



102 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 



by the standard of his own perverted conscience, and of his 
own crude notions of absolute personal liberty, then, indeed, 
we are without law and without government. We are in the 
very midst of anarchy, and there is no possible escape from 
it. This may seem to some a desperate conclusion, but I 
here challenge the whole array of these great constitutional, 
personal liberty expounders, from the least to the greatest, to 
show how this conclusion of the argument can be escaped ? 
I dare say that they will treat the challenge with indifference 
and contempt. They will not condescend to reply to one of 
so humble a rank in the profession as the author. They will 
treat him as they have many others, as a foeman altogether 
unworthy of their steel. They will refuse to ".fight down 
hill," as did once a man of distinction who was invited to 
settle a dispute by the established code of honor ; another 
one of those rights guaranteed to our fore-fathers by the con- 
stitution of personal liberty. But I am not writing this book 
to bring myself into the contemptous notice of such men. I 
am writing it for another and an entirely different purpose. 
I am writing at this time to awaken to an active spirit of in- 
vestigation the slumbering thought and intellectual vigor of 
the masses of the people, and especially the young men of 
the country, who have gone to sleep upon this great question 
under the soothing odors of the deadly upas tree of personal 
liberty. 

The saloon keepers and their deluded sympathizers are 
continually saying that prohibition does not prohibit. They 
also assert that it is ruinous to the prosperity of a town or 
county which adopts it. They give as a reason for the latter 
assertion that people who have dry goods and groceries to 
buy and cotton to sell, always want to go to trade and market 
their produce to a place where they can get whisky. That 
the good old farmers of the country who are the very bone 
and sinews of the prosperity of the towns and the cities are so 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. I03 

clamorous for an opportunity to get drunk, that they will 
withdraw their trade from a market where restrictions are 
laid upon the glorious privilege of making beasts and mad- 
men out of themselves and their boys. This is a very fine 
sample of consistency. But I will pursue that part of the ar- 
gument no further. I propose now to demonstrate to the satis- 
faction of every fair-minded and unprejudiced reader that 
even local option will prohibit a little. To what extent 
state or general prohibition will probably prohibit, will 
be fully discussed in its order. The idea that either will ab- 
solutely prohibit is chimerial, the distorted conception of a 
disordered imagination. No sound, practical thinker ever en- 
tertained such an idea. 

That there are a few fanatics who suppose that it will, al- 
most in the twinkling of an eye, dry up the poisonous foun- 
tains of double-distilled iniquity, and transform all the con- 
stitutional drunkards and confirmed inebriates into temper- 
ance lecturers and models of sobriety and purity, is but an 
instance of the extreme weakness of human understanding, 
distorted by an irrepressible zeal which mocks at the impos- 
sible. That there are a few "sure enough" cranks in the 
world, we all know too well, but if there is any subject on 
earth on which a man is altogether justifiable in becoming a 
crank and fanatic, it is upon the subject of prohibition and 
temperance. But I must get back to the subject of the 
efficacy of local option in the prevention of drunkenness. 
Let us reason upon this subject as persons having some knowl- 
edge of human nature, though we may have had no better text 
book from which to gain such knowledge than our own per- 
sonal impulses and individual experiences. You are a young 
man, just entering upon the threshold of your chosen business 
or profession of life. We will suppose that you have had the 
benefit of reasonably correct moral training in childhood and 
youth. You have often been warned by your good father and 



104 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

mother of the evils of drunkenness and dissipation. You have 
often heard them while on their bended knees, pray God that 
you may be guided by His fatherly care into the pathways of 
rectitude and usefulness, that you may be ever strengthened 
by his power in every effort to resist temptation to vice, and 
especially that you may be able to shun the deadly enchant- 
ment of the poisonous wine cup. You have all had sufficient 
warning upon the subject to teach you that a drunkard's life 
is a shame and a disgrace, although he may commit no crim- 
inal offense cognizable by the penal laws of the country. You 
may wonder at times why the law does not interpose to check 
the drunkard's ungodly and wicked career, and remove his de- 
moralizing example from the association of the young men of 
the country. You have been taught from the earliest dawn of 
your intellectual activity to fear and respect the laws of the 
land. You have learned that it is a terrible thing to be ar- 
raigned before the courts of the country on a criminal charge. 
If you have been reasonably well trained, you can not help 
shuddering at the very thought of being called to answer a 
prosecution for a criminal offense, although it may be nothing 
more than a trifling misdemeanor. You tremble at the possi- 
bility of being falsely accused of a crime, and even of being 
forced to officiate in a criminal case in the capacity of a wit- 
ness. Assuming this much, we will suppose that the morning 
on which you attain your majority you bid adieu to your anx- 
ious mother and father, and go out into the world alone and 
unaided by their counsel and constant advice and protection, 
with many tearful longings and strange misgivings, to enter 
upon the struggle of actual life. You go to the nearest town 
or village for the purpose of getting employment or waiting 
for "something to turn up." You then find on every side gil- 
ded saloons with a constant flow of misguided humanity into 
and out of their gaping doorways, which stand at all times 
wide open for the admission of the thirsty or the curious, 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 105 

You meet as you pass by a crowd of rollicking, thoughtless 
boys with whom you are acquainted. Some one of them will 
be certain to say : "Let's go in and take something." You 
remember the words of your father and mother, perhaps the 
gentle voice of a sweet and loving sister, as she sings "Don't 
go near the bar-room, Brother," and then you reply, "Please 
excuse, me." But it is of no use; they will not excuse you. 
If they should, it would be with an insulting remark. They 
would ask you what grievance you had against them, or any 
one of their number, that is so serious as to prompt a refusal 
to unite with them in a social drink. You have much regard 
for their feelings. You do not wish to provoke them to anger 
or leave them with the erroneous impression that you are 
angry with them, or that you feel yourself above them. You 
have never been taught that it is any great wrong to take just 
one little drink, especially under such embarrassing circum- 
stances. You finally yield and enter for the first time the 
doorway of your ultimate ruin. It is needless to go on with 
the history. It is but the history of a tramp and a vagabond, 
the history of countless millions of our race. So much for 
saloons; so much for license. 

But, suppose that when you go to that town or village, you 
find no such dens of iniquity, no such pitfalls of temptation ? 
Suppose there should be a superabundance of drug stores for 
the population, which seem to thrive and grow rich regardless 
of the fact that there is no sickness in the country and no 
apparent demand for medicinal commodities. Suppose, for 
the sake of the argument, that every one of these drug stores 
is but a sham, and a device for dealing in whisky in defiance 
of the law, and suppose that in each one of them there is an 
abortion, who pretends to be a practicing physician, ready at 
all times to prostitute the honor which he is supposed to have, 
but has not, to the base purposes for which he is employed 
for the paltry consideration of what mean whisky he can 



106 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

drink ? Suppose you should, perchance, meet the same crowd 
of boys that you did under the circumstances above describ- 
ed. Suppose, which would not be at all probable, one of the 
number would suggest that all hands go to this infamous dis- 
ciple of iEsculapius just mentioned and get a prescription for 
the drinks. You would be sure to reply, "I am not sick," 
and no persuasion would lead you into a participation in the 
commission of a criminal offense or into taking the risk of 
being caught up as a witness in the establishment of the guilt 
of the parties liable to the penalty. The importation of jugs 
would be almost exclusively confined to that element of soci- 
ety, which has long since passed beyond the hope of redemp- 
tion. Even among the class known as hopeless and incorri- 
gible drunkards and especially among those who have not 
lost every feeling of self-respect, you find men who have the 
very highest regard for their families, and who would not un- 
der any circumstances do anything that would mar the feel- 
ings or impair in the least the social and domestic happiness 
of their innocent loved ones. 

Ther,e are, of course, some exceptions to the rule, but it 
will be found oftener the case than otherwise that the drunk- 
ard loses respect for himself and every other object that binds 
him to a miserable existence before he gives up all care and 
anxiety for the well-being of his pleading wife and innocent 
children, When the thoughts of the feelings and interests of 
those who are by nature nearest and dearest to his heart, cease 
to woo him to a better life, he is, indeed, an abandoned wretch, 
totally unfit for the least of the duties and responsibilities of 
a husband or a father, or to enjoy the privileges of citizenship. 
Until he gives up every thought and care for the happiness of 
his own household, he will never consent that his home shall 
be made the favorite resort for his drunken associates. When 
saloons are in full blast, and when every temptation is offered 
to induce him to join in a beastly carousal, he will often yield 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. I07 

to the promptings of his too generous nature and to the im- 
portunacy of his friends and go in and engage with them in 
the degrading pleasures of dissipation and debauchery. But 
remove these gilded hells of unspeakable iniquity, and leave 
him with no other facility with which to gratify his perverted 
taste for strong drink than the importation of jugs from dis- 
tant markets or sections of the country, and it will be found 
thathewill not drink so much, and that he will be under circum- 
stances which will go a great way to restrain whatever tenden- 
cies he may have to drink to excess and to drunkenness. We 
will suppose that the saloons are closed, and that although 
local option or other prohibitory law does not prohibit as they 
say, he is forced by the cravings of his appetite to either pat- 
ronize one of these professional prostitutes who calls himself 
a doctor, and to get his bogus prescriptions filled at one of 
those local option drug stores, or to send off to a neighboring 
town or county and get his daily portion of liquid hell-fire by 
the jug or the barrel. He will, if he has any respect for the 
laws of his country, prefer the latter alternative. He sends off 
and gets it by the quantity, When it arrives he will generally 
store it away in his closet rather than rent for himself a house 
in town for that purpose. It is quite probable that he will 
take several drinks a day, and it may be expected that he will 
occasionally drink too much, and, possibly get drunk. How 
often do you suppose he would go down into town and gather 
up all the drunkards and professional dead-beats with whom 
he is in the habit of drinking in the saloons, and take them to 
his house to insult his good wife, destroy the morals of his son, 
and pollute the very fountains of his domestic tranquility and 
happiness? He will not do it; he would not dare to take such 
an ungodly crew into his parlor, and if he did so, that good 
wife of his who has borne so long and patiently with his own 
drunkenness and depravity, would be justified in setting the 
dogs on them, and if she is not almost an angel in her spirit 



108 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

of forbearance, she would most certainly do it. It may be 
safely assumed that the jug traffic would be almost entirely 
confined to the hopeless drunkards who have no power to re- 
sist the appetite which urges them onward to the portals of 
ignominious death. They could not possibly be made worse 
drunkards than they are, and the check would be placed upon 
the young men of the country who have not become confirmed 
in the habit would be very perceptible in a very short space 
of time. 

Another class of imbeciles would thereby be driven from 
their customary haunts, and society would be to a great ex- 
tent, relieved of a nuisance which is next to intolerable. This 
class comprises the countless hosts of dead-beats, tramps and 
professional "bummers," who hang around saloons waiting 
for the broad-gauged, generous, well-to-do drunkards to 
treat them. Not one out of a hundred of them would ever 
get drunk enough to raise a disturbance, if he had to depend 
on the jug traffic for his whisky. He would never have 
enough money to purchase the necessary postage stamp to 
send off the order, much less to pay for the goods and express 
charges on their arrival. Every town in the State is to-day 
full of these shiftless characters, and while they are first-class 
consumers of the vile stuff, and would be beneficial, perhaps 
to the public, if the supply of the article were limited to the 
capacity of their stomachs and they were entitled first to be 
served. As it is they are worse than the very worst of public 
nuisances with which society is infested. I have been in- 
formed that there are saloon keepers in the land, who.actually 
encourage them to loaf around their places of business for no 
other purpose than to contribute to the net proceeds of the 
crowd-treats, the usual and customary penalty imposed upon 
every block-head who gets the worst of a joke. I do not 
know this to be the truth, but I do know that those worthless 
vagabonds are generally to be found hovering around saloons 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. IO9 

and to see one sober is the exception to the rule, although 
they are at all times wholly insolvent and impecunions. They 
never pay a cent, nor miss a drink. They can get drunk and 
paint the whole side of a town in all colors when they 
can't get money to purchase a bowl of soup to supply 
the cravings of hunger. The jug traffic, or any sort of traffic, 
would certainly improve their self-respect, even though they 
should, perchance, be able to raise the necessary capital to 
go into the business on a very small scale. So much for the 
local option drug-store ; so much for the terrible jug traffic, 
which is all there is or can be in it, if our judgment of human 
character and our eyes do not deceive us. 

Before closing this chapter as I was about to do, I desire to 
speak briefly of a class of people who above all others per- 
haps will usually be benefited by local option or other pro- 
hibitory legislation : that is the colored population of our 
country. 

That there should be a natural prejudice in the minds of 
the ignorant and uncharitable classes of the whites against 
this truly unfortunate race of people is by no means surpris- 
ing. When we consider the fact that they had been from time 
immemorial until the close of the late war, regarded as a class 
unfit for the blessings of personal freedom and as being but 
little if any higher in the scale of animated existence than the 
ordinary beasts of burden; that this view of their mission on 
earth was strenuously taught in all of the Southern schools of 
morality and even of theology and religion, we could not 
reasonably expect anything else than that they should yet be 
regarded with the greatest indifference, especially by the un- 
thinking and unprogressive masses. This prejudice, however, 
is dying out by degrees, and while it will never be conceded 
by the whites (and ought not to be) that the negro race is the 
equal of the white or the Caucasian. Our fair-minded people 
are beginning to realize that the colored people are entitled 



110 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

to a place in the great family of mankind — could we ever 
realize that the poor negro is not in the least responsible for 
the conditions of his birth, nor for the chains which for so 
long held his body down to menial servitude while his simple 
mind was fettered by the worst type of ignorance and super- 
stition, we would feel more like helping him to rise to a higher 
plane of respectability and usefulness, than throwing obstacles 
in the way of his intellectual and moral advancement. I be- 
lieve that the more enlightened our people become upon this 
subject the more charitable and sympathetic they become in 
their feelings towards this naturally inferior race. That pro- 
hibitory legislation will benefit them there can be no sort of 
question, although it should be conceded that there are other 
classes who would be able to evade the operation of the law. 
There are no colored physicians to prescribe whisky for their 
sick or "their well stomachs," and there will be found but 
few "whited sepulchers" in the form of practicing physicians 
of the white race low enough down to thus pander to the 
perverted appetites of the negroes. The jug traffic with the 
negroes would be much less in proportion to their number 
than with the white race. It is unnecessary here to go over 
the reasons which must from what has already been said upon 
that branch of the subject be evident to the mind of the 
reader. The negro population would do but little drinking 
away from the low dives which they are accustomed to fre- 
quent in the towns and the cities. Break up the dives and 
you practically destroy drunkenness among the negroes. 

A common objection urged against local option, not only 
by those who favor prohibition, but by those who bitterly op- 
pose it, is, that it does not prohibit, but it is frequently stated 
that it rather increases than checks the spread of the evil it is 
intended to suppress, The saloon keepers go down into their 
phlethoric pockets, and put up thousands of their ill-gotten 
gain to prevent the adoption of the law in a town, precinct 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. Ill 

or county, and then proclaim upon the highways and from 
the hustings that the law, when adopted, is entirely inopera- 
tive, and even worse than a dead letter upon the statute 
books. As before stated, I am bewildered when I attempt to 
reconcile the action with the statement. If it do not pro- 
hibit, but rather encourage the consumption of their hellish 
commodities, then why do they not favor, rather than oppose, 
local option ? Have they become so much interested in the 
welfare of the country, and so watchful over the interests of 
society at large ; so tenderly sympathetic in their natures as 
to sacrifice their own interests and the success of their busi- 
ness, upon the altar of sobriety and temperance ? Temper- 
ance workers should not allow themselves to be deceived for 
a moment by the false statements and worse than fallacious 
arguments of such men, whose very victuals and clothes are 
dependent upon the insatiate cravings of the torturing ap- 
petites they themselves have long fed with liquid fires of 
damnation. Men, whose business depends upon the spread 
of an evil, are not to be relied on for advice in the adoption 
of a plan to suppress it. Much less can they be relied on to 
devise a remedy for the destruction of a vice which they have 
given much of their life's labor and thought to develop or 
create. A man who can so divest himself of the innate sel- 
fishness of humanity as to sincerely struggle to breakdown 
and destroy his own chosen calling or profession, is too good 
a man to sell whisky ; too good for this world ; too good to 
be contaminated by contact with " this wicked and perverse 
generation.'' He ought to be permitted to climb the "golden 
stairs" and enter the gateways of the new Jerusalem before 
he has an opportunity to fall under the weight of temptation. 
No reasonable, thinking man, who has ever studied the first 
lessons of frail human nature, will believe any such preten- 
sions. Put it down as a fact, beyond dispute, that the man 
who will voluntarily degrade himself by going into the 



112 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

saloon business, there to deal out liquid damnation by the 
drink or by the quantity, will do nothing, intentionally, 
which could possibly contribute to the suppression of 
drunkenness or any milder form of intemperance. He will 
sometimes say that he dislikes to see men drink whisky, 
while at the same time he keeps his sink-hole of iniquity 
wide open and yawning for victims through all hours of the 
night. 

Nor is that all; if the authorities will let him, he invokes 
the bewitching power of music to charm by the "harmony of 
sweet sounds" the unwary and unsuspecting who may happen 
to pass within range of his deadly portals. In front of the bar 
he keeps a screen to hide from the idle gaze, of the curious 
world the forms and features of his misguided, self-accused 
and guilt-stricken customers; in the rear he keeps free lunch- 
es, pool tables, billiards, dominoes and dice boxes, and every 
other species of gambling devices, the exhibition of which 
is not positively forbidden by statute. Up stairs he keeps 
keno, roulette, faro, monte, and all manner of gambling tables 
and "contraptions," manufactured expressly for the purpose 
of systematic robbery and theft. Upon every street corner he 
has a bloated representative whose business it is to ensnare 
and rope in the unskillful and unsuspecting young men of the 
country when they come in with their cotton, the well-earned 
reward of their whole yeai's arduous labor. These profes- 
sional swindlers and blacklegs approach a young man who 
has disposed of his cotton and received his money from the 
buyer; they pretend that they know him, or offer to do him a 
kindness; finally work themselves into his confidence, and en- 
tice him into their dens of robbery and villainy, where a few 
drinks must be taken as a prerequisite to admittance up the 
stairway to the chamber of robbery and all sorts of villainy. 
Talk about one of the keepers of these dens, which are so com- 
mon in every city and town of importance, doing anything to 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. II3 

stay the murderous hand of the demon to whose ravages he 
owes all of his wealth and power. It is the very embodiment 
of absurdity. And yet there are hosts of good, though simple 
minded people, who believe it all; who suffer themselves to 
be led to the ballot box and voted in the interest of whisky, 
because they are told by those foulmouthed saloon keepers 
that prohibition does not prohibit. Some newspaper whose 
editor has been "rocked in the cradle of personal liberty," 
and who knows about as much of constitutions and constitu- 
tional limitations as a yoke of oxen, publishes a tirade against 
local option, or a bogus communication from a bogus corres- 
pondent, whose bogus friend claims to have been in Atlanta, 
Georgia, or in Rockwall or Forney, Texas, and heard some 
bogus individual say that he heard that it did not prohibit in 
those places, and that settles the question. I have heard of 
many of these ubiquitous individuals prowling around over 
the country hunting up imaginary instances of the failure of 
such laws to prohibit. One day they are gathering statistics 
in Maine; next day they are in Georgia, Kansas, or Texas, 
and it is not unfrequently the case that they are in all of these 
and a half dozen other places at the same time. But when 
you undertake to locate them they are nowhere to be found 
in the land of the living. 

A certain class of mercenary papers publish anonymous 
letters from nobody in particular, together with their unfav- 
orable comments upon the prohibitory legislation in question 
(for which they get the usual sum of twenty cents a line for 
first insertion), and these communications and comments are 
copied extensively by that portion of the country press which 
is in sympathy with the whisky element, and no further evi- 
dence is required to establish the proposition that prohibitory 
laws are worse than a failure. Why should a wholesale 
whisky dealer be concerned about the manner of selling liquor 
in the different States, counties, precincts, or'cities so he is 



114 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

able to supply it by the large quantity to those engaged in the 
traffic either as saloon keepers or druggists ? Why is it that 
he will spend thousands of dollars to buy up congressmen and 
others who are supposed to have large influence, and to cor- 
rupt the ballot-box for the purpose of defeating a measure 
which not only does not prohibit the sale and use of his mer- 
chandise, but actually increases his trade and contributes to 
his profits? What is the difference to the wholesale dealer 
whether his moral and social dynamite is retailed by the 
licensed saloon or by the much cursed and abused local op- 
tion drug stores ? It can not be material to his interest, and 
if not, why should he organize himself into a stupendous liq- 
uor dealers' association and subscribe millions of money to 
oppose the progress of an enlightened public sentiment in an 
honest effort to destroy the evil ? Above I have mentioned 
his liberality in the purchase of congressmen and others in 
high political standing and authority, and in this connection 
I desire to mention a "rumor" which went the rounds of the 
papers a year or two ago, and which perhaps some of my 
readers have forgotten. The liquor or beer dealers' associa- 
tion of the United States of America has for some years kept 
a paid representative and lobbyist at Washington whose duty, 
it seems, has been to feel of the representatives of the people 
upon that question and to use every legitimate means to win 
them over to the cause of whisky, beer, and the devil. About 
the time above stated this lobbyist, whose name I now forget, 
nor is it material, made a report in writing to his constitu- 
ency, the association aforesaid, in which he positively stated 
that he had secured the co-operation of a number of con- 
gressmen in the Southern States, Texas among the number, in 
the suppression of every attempt upon the part of the people 
to check the growth of their business by prohibitory legisla- 
tion or otherwise. He stated that he had acomplished it by 
threatening the Democratic party with the power he represen- 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 115 

ted in the next presidential campaign, giving them to under- 
stand that if they did not "dance to his music," he would 
lead all of his inebriate host into the ranks of the Republican 
party and play havoc with the Democratic party by the elec- 
tion of a republican president in 1888. This alleged report 
was published in quite a number of papers in Texas, and the 
only answer I ever saw impeaching or attempting to impeach 
it was published in the Galveston News, not over the signa- 
ture of any Texas congressman, but as an editorial, and that 
answer consisted of a general denial and a call for strict proof. 
It was substantially that the report of this representative 
was not in any way binding, that it was not conclusive of the 
matters it contained, and, admitting that he had made such a 
report which was not denied, so far as I know, by any one, it 
was insisted that it was but hearsay evidence and not suffi- 
cient to convict. It was expected that certain wise men of 
our State, who ought to be familiar with every thing that 
happened in and about Washington city at that time, would 
at least put in some sort of an answer either denying or justi- 
fying the alleged conspiracy against the good people of 
of Texas. If any judgment was rendered upon the indict- 
ment, it was without a plea. At any rate, the whole thing 
was hushed up and soon forgotten by the great mass of the 
people. If it were not true, it ought to have been branded as 
a falsehood by those whose good names were assailed : if it 
were true, then it necessarily follows that not only the Dem- 
ocratic party, but the government itself is practically in the 
hands of the Liquor or Beer Dealers' Association of America. 
If that institution can dictate to the leaders of a great party 
how they shall demean themselves at home, and what stand 
they shall take upon so great a question as that of State pro- 
hibition, or local option, or any other measure seriously af- 
fecting the best interests of their constituents, then indeed is 
this stupendous combination of immeasurable iniquity su- 



1 1 6 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

preme in the land, and we had just as well accept the inevit- 
able. No. It can not be so. I can not believe that every 
drop of true patriotism has gone out of the veins of the 
descendants of so noble an ancestry. I can not believe that 
the people of Texas or of the South, as devotedly -as they 
love the name of Democracy and the memory of its heroic 
struggles for constitutional liberty, will ever even for the sake 
of that name, or any other empty sound, submit to the sway 
of a tyrant, whose despotic career out-Herods all of the 
Herods of antiquity. 

There is an old and familiar saying that "the proof of the 
pudding is in chewing the bag," or words to that effect. 
When Robert Fulton applied the power of steam to the 
propulsion of his rude and unshapely water-craft, the great 
scientific wiseacres of the land said that " it would'nt work." 
When the great Morse conceived the idea of the transmis- 
sion of messages by lightning, they said that "it wouldn't 
work." When the intrepid and tireless Christopher Colum- 
bus took up an idea that a new continent might be discovered, 
the wise men of Europe thought — that " it wouldn't work." 
They would have willingly taken an oath that none of these 
visionary schemes would work, and not only these great 
pioneers in the field of invention, but many others, scarcely 
less distinguished in science, were in their day pronounced 
cranks or fanatics. And so it will ever be. The great mas- 
ses of mankind will cling to the errors and follies of the 
past, and mock at every effort to correct them, oppose every 
step in the march of scientific progress or social advance- 
ment. The great mass of the people in every age and 
country are averse to innovation. Th^y are ever disposed to 
let well enough alone, and they want every one else to do 
likewise. Demagogues feast upon this weakness. They are 
to-day trusting to it as they fight valiantly in the motley 
ranks of the devil and alcohol. Like the world was by Ful- 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 117 

ton, Morse and others in their day, they say that local option 
"won't work." 

My purpose is to show by actual experience that it will 
work and that it does work admirably whenever its support- 
ers have the manhood and courage to do their duty in seeing 
that it is enforced. Notwithstanding the assertion of those 
who are opposed to prohibition that it has been a total fail 
ure in Atlanta, Georgia, I am prepared to say that it has done 
much in the way of suppressing the evil in that city. Some 
months ago I took upon myself the trouble to investigate the 
question for my own personal satisfaction. I wrote a letter 
to Hon. Geo. B. Hillyer at that time mayor of the city, and in 
answer, he said substantially, that the measure had been a 
success; that, while there was a considerable class of the 
people who would have their accustomed whisky and would 
send off and import it by the jug; that while others would 
obtain it in other ways made possible by the law; its effect 
upon the young men of the city and surrounding country was 
quite beneficial. He said that, while he much preferred ab- 
solute State prohibition as the best, he regarded local option 
as the next. In addition to the statements made in his letter, 
he gave such statistics as proved beyond question that the 
law was a great improvement on the license system, Coming 
down to our own State, I am able to speak tc- some extent 
from my own personal observation. In a former chapter I 
had occasion to mention the little town of Forney in the 
northwestern portion of Kaufman county in which I have 
until quite recently lived since my first immigration to Texas, 
something over thirty years ago. If there is any people on 
earth that I do know, it is the people of Kaufman county, and 
especially those who live in what is known as Forney pre- 
cinct. I sowed most of my wild oats among them, and it 
was excellent soil for that kind of produce in those days, be- 
ginning with a few years before the civil war, and extending 



1 1 8 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

to the years of 1877 or 1878. In 1873 the Texas & Pacific 
Railroad was completed through the county. A little town 
sprang up in the midst of as wild a set of people as could 
have been found in the State of Texas or any where else 
within the range of civilization. I have a right to speak thus, 
because I have been one of them myself. But, for all their 
wildness and dissipation, they were in the main a noble, a 
generous, and, with some exceptions, an honest people. The 
first house that was built was devoted to the service of the 
liquor traffic. It was run by the most prominent man in that 
section of the country, a man who had accommodated every 
body, whose friends — and they were numerous- — virtually 
swore by his name and his word. He was looked upon as the 
chief of the tribe. He was nicknamed "The chief of the 
Tonkaways," and the name seemed to be very appropriate.* 
He was soon wrecked and on a cold, wintry night in the latter 
part of 1875, he started to his home after a protracted carou- 
sal, fell down upon the railroad track; soon afterwards a pas- 
senger train came along, ran over his body, and launched him 
into eternity in the twinkling of an eye, leaving the scattered 
remnants of his once manly form to be gathered up the next 
morning by his disconsolate friends. He was a man of a kind 
and generous heart, devoted to his friends, and the author 
calls to mind the recollection of a thousand personal favors 
and words of encouragement bestowed upon him in the years 
of his struggle with adversity. 

His influence was wide-spread. He did not intend to injure 
his fellow man, but, while I cherish his memory for his good- 
ness of heart and for his uniform kindness to me, I must, in 
justice to the truth, say of him that he and his saloon did much 
toward sowing the seeds of dissipation among the people of 
that little town and community. While it lasted, horse-racing, 

* Bailey Daugherty, an early settler of Kaufman County. 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 



fighting, gambling, shooting, and all manner of disturbances 
were of every day occurrence. Every Saturday brought on a 
perfect pandemonium. The justice's court was always in ses- 
sion, and engaged in the trial of those misdemeanors which 
were the offspring of drunkenness and dissipation. I have al- 
ready spoken of the organization of a temperance council, 
and the valiant struggle made by some young men who set- 
tled there soon after the town was located. If there ever was 
a place that needed a large dose of reformation to work off 
the accumulated iniquity of a few years of demoralization, 
that place was certainly Forney; and I say it in all kindness 
for her people and her enterprises. Local option was carried. 
The saloons "folded their tents like the Arabs, and silently 
stole away," They went, "and stood not upon the order of 
their going." Nor has Forney from that day to this good 
hour had anything resembling a saloon. The temperance el- 
ement have kept themselves organized, and while there has 
been an occasional importation of jugs, the moral revolution 
has been practically complete. The population and wealth 
of the town and precinct have increased in more than ten- 
fold greater proportion than any other in the county since the 
adoption of the law. The people have been ever peaceful, 
prosperous and happy. Local option is a fixture. There has 
not been an attempt to repeal it for nearly ten years. It has 
been a success. 

Another instance is the county of Rockwall. If you don't 
believe that the sentiment of Rockwall county is overwhelm- 
ingly in favor of its maintainence after a ten years trial, go 
over there and start a saloon or a local option drug store, and 
sell whisky in violation of the letter or spirit of the law. You 
will get the maximum punishment every time a jury of repre- 
sentative men get a whack at you. Not long since a saloon 
man located in Rockwall, and hung out the sign, "Dealer in 
Drugs, Medicines, etc." Having purchased a few patent med- 



120 PRACTICAL PROHIPITION. 

icines and enough bottles labeled all over with the technical 
names known to the intricate nomenclature of materia medica, 
the meaning of not one of which he could even give a respec- 
table guess at, he started out to make his long deferred for- 
tune by selling liquor in violation of the law. When it came 
to paying his license taxes to the State, county and city, he 
maintained that local option was in force. When indicted 
for selling whisky in violation of its provisions he stultified 
himself by insisting that it had never been legally adopted. 
The author in connection with his partner, Mr. Montrose, 
was employed by a large number of good citizens of the coun- 
ty to aid in the prosecution. There was no trouble whatever 
in convicting in every case, and in each one that was tried the 
highest penalty was assessed by the jury. One of the parties 
resorted to a trial on habeas corpus, and had the privelege of 
lying in jail for several weeks. He is "at the present writ- 
ing" languishing in jail awaiting the decision of the Court of 
Appeals upon the question of the solidity of the law, or rather 
the alleged irregularity of the proceedings of county commis- 
sioner's court in its adoption by the people. Before this book 
is completed and published, the case* will be decided; but 
whatever the opinion of the Appellate Court may be upon the 
question, the people of Rockwall county are firmly established 
in their determination to suppress whisky, and they will give 
it another trial besides casting nearly a solid vote for the pro- 
posed Constitutional Amendment. Let other counties follow 
the example. 

*Ex-Parte Sublett, Austin Term, 1887. Reversed and dismissed because 
of irregularities in the adoption of the law. 



CHAPTER VIII. 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 

STATE PROHIBITION — GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE SUBJECT. 



I come now to discuss the living, tangible issue which is 
now before the people of Texas. It is with much diffidence 
and distrust that I undertake so weighty and difficult a task. 
It is heavily fraught with responsibility, because upon the de- 
cision of this vital question by our people at the ensuing elec- 
tion perhaps depends the eternal destiny of thousands of im- 
mortal souls. On that day ever to be remembered with bles- 
sings or curses, we are to cast the horoscope of the lives, and 
decide the fate of multiplied thousands of our own generation 
and of the generations to come after us. There are some 
who treat this momentous question with the utmost indiffer- 
ence. There are those who look upon it as a huge joke got- 
ten up for the gratification of a few cranks, hypochondriacs 
and hysterical women. There are certain prominent news- 
papers in the country that indulge in all sorts of ridicule and 
puerile flippancy, when they take occasion to refer to the un- 
democratic action of a Democratic Legislature in allowing 
the people the pitiful privilege of governing themselves long 
enough to engraft upon the organic law of the State by a 
popular vote a principle for which they have so long pleaded 
and petitioned in vain. As often as they have heretofore be- 
sought their supposed servants, but real masters, at the State 
capital to grant them this modest request, they have been re- 
buked for their impertinence. Petitions almost a mile long, 

(121) 



PRiVCTICAL PROHIBITION. 



signed by the very best of men of the State, and Democrats 
at that, have been insultingly thrown in the waste-basket of 
the solons, or summarily thrown aside in the deference to the 
clamors of corrupt schemers and unscrupulous political job- 
bers ; and the wily and insiduous power of ruin has generally 
found a medium through which to lay its blighting hand and 
withering clutches upon every embryo movement having in 
view the relief of the people from the ravages of the red-eyed 
demon of intemperance. It is well remembered that during 
the last days of the Nineteenth Legislature, a bill was passed 
by both houses of that body amending the local option law, 
making it possible to punish by adequate fine and imprison- 
ment that loathsome class of physicians who so often have 
been known to issue prescriptions by the wholesale for. the 
benefit of whisky dealers sailing under the colors of an hon- 
orable calling. The amendment failed to materialize. The 
committee whose duty it was to look after the disposition of 
the bill after passage, charged the clerks with spiriting it 
away, which is but another name for stealing. The clerks 
claimed to be innocent of the charge, the matter was hushed 
up, and what became of the bill is to-day an unsolved 
mystery, so far as I have ever been informed. That it was 
suppressed through the criminal agency of the whisky ele- 
ment there can not be the least question. That it was done 
for the purpose of preventing local option from prohibiting, 
is not doubted. 

But whatever may be the sins of the Nineteenth legislature 
and its officers, whatever complaints may have been justly 
made by the people against its predecessors, some of whom 
were, indeed, "a motley crew," living, breathing masses of 
political corruption, the Twentieth ought to be held in the 
highest esteem for the resolution and courage displayed by 
its members in submitting to the people the proposed consti- 
tutional amendment, which is, according to the opinion of the 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. I 23 

senator from Guadalupe "as innocent of democracy as the 
devil is of pure and unadulterated religion." In that act they 
have acknowledged the right of the people to petition their 
representatives and have construed that right as embracing a 
corresponding duty on the part of the representatives to 
respect the petition when presented. 

Their predecessors never conceived that there was an in- 
separable relationship existing between the right of the peo- 
ple and the duty of the representatives. But, to pass on to 
the merits of the question before us, that of the adoption or 
rejection of State prohibition. 

By the passage of the resolution submitting the amendment, 
the qualified voters of Texas are given the right to decide 
whether or not the legislature shall be given the power and 
that it shall be made its special duty at its next session 
thereafter to pass a law declaring unlawful the manufacture 
or sale of intoxicating liquors with some necessary except- 
ions, and to provide adequate penalties for the violation of 
such law. 

As the constitution now stands, no such law can be passed 
by the Legislature, and any attempt to do so would be obnox- 
ious to that provision in the Constitution which provides for 
local prohibition by votes of the people and perhaps other 
clauses not necessary to discuss. 

If a majority voting at the election in August next shall 
cast their ballots in favor of the amendment, a State prohibit- 
ory law will be enacted in the spring of 1889 and possibly 
earlier, should the Governor call a special session, which is 
not probable, and the saloons will all have to go hence about 
the first of July following, perhaps a little earlier, and maybe 
a month or so later. All those who are engaged in the sale 
of liquors as a beverage and all who have money or property 
invested or tied up in the business will have fair warning and 
ample time to drink up or dispose of all of their whisky and 



124 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

kill off the greater number of their best customers and them- 
selves if they conclude that they are unfit for any kind of 
respectable business, before the law can be put into operation. 
In that regard State prohibition is a decided improvement on 
local option. It is preferable in this, that when the State 
passes a general law upon the subject, there is no chance 
"to get behind the returns," as is permitted in cases of prose- 
cutions for violation of the local option law. 

In a prosecution under the latter the State assumes the 
burden of proving that the law was properly adopted; that is, 
that a petition in due form of law was presented; that it was 
signed by the requisite number of qualified voters; that the 
prescribed notice was given by publication or by posting; 
that presiding officers of the election precincts were duly ap- 
pointed and commissioned; that the election was actually 
held; that the returns were properly made out and filed; that 
the Commissioners' Court counted the vote and entered an 
order declaring the result, and the passage of the law; and if a 
majority are found to be in favor of the law, and that legal 
notice was given informing the saloon keepers and all other 
persons that the law had been passed and that they must de- 
sist from the further exercise of their personal liberty to 
scatter death and damnation in the section of country em- 
braced by the order, unless it is done on the prescription of 
a practicing physician certifying upon honor that it is neces- 
sary as a medicine in cases of actual sickness. In almost 
every case irregularities are found to exist and in a great 
many instances they have been held of such a character as 
to invalidate the law. In that case the prisoner goes free,, 
and by paying up his State and county license, he may like 
the dog "return to his vomit," if he desires to do so. 

The first great question which presents itself to our consid- 
eration in the discussion before us is, is it right for a majority 
of the people of a State to engraft upon the organic law of 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. I 25 

such State a clause having in view the absolute prohibition of 
the liquor traffic ? The next question in order is that of ex- 
pediency, that is, admitting that State prohibition is right in 
principle, will its adoption redound to the best interests of 
the people at large ? Will it tend to promote the welfare and 
general prosperity of our State morally, socially, or financially ? 
Will it add to or detract from our material progress ? Taking 
every thing together, will it be beneficial or detrimental to 
the material interests of the State ? The opposition inter- 
poses the objection that such a law is sumptuary in its char- 
acter and is an unwarranted interference with personal liberty. 
I have already discussed at sufficient length, I hope, the per- 
sonal liberty part of the objection in the chapter devoted to 
local option and a repetition of the argument is not neces- 
sary. Is the objection maintainable on the ground that pro- 
hibitory laws are sumptuary in their character, and therefore 
contrary to the spirit of our Ameiican institutions ? 

A sumptuary law is one that has for its object the regulation 
and restriction of personal expenses, and may refer to any 
character of luxury whatever which demands for its support 
a reckless or unnecessary expenditure of money. A sumpt- 
uary law may attempt to prescribe the amount of money you 
may appropriate to the support of your table and to regulate 
the costliness, or even texture, of your apparel. It may have 
for its object the establishment and forcible maintenance of a 
condition of entire social equality among all sorts and classes 
of people. It is easily to be seen that a law having such objects 
in view are not only wrong in principle, but hurtful and inju- 
rious in their operation. They are contrary to nature herself. 
In construing laws, whether they be organic or statutory, the 
object of the law-making power must be looked to rather than 
to the peculiar phraseology. They must be liberally, rather 
than literally or strictly construed, that they may accomplish 
the purposes for which they are enacted. If the object to be 



126 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

attained is one falling within the purview of legislation, and 
in no way obnoxious to any constitutional limitation or res- 
triction, the courts will go a long way to uphold it, although 
it may be defective in its language, and apparently harsh and 
oppressive in some cases. If the object of a law should satis- 
factorily appear to the courts to be sumptuary in its charac- 
ter, they would be justifiable in holding it inoperative and 
void. If the only object of a prohibitory enactment appears 
to be the regulation of personal expenses, and to reduce man- 
kind to a state of perfect social equality, in spite of them- 
selves, it ought to be ignored by the courts, and no man ought 
ever to suffer the penalties prescribed for its violation. And 
right here is the distinction which many of the ablest men of 
our country have failed or refused to consider. They insist 
that if the State can legally and justly prohibit the manufac- 
ture and sale of intoxicating liquors, it can, upon the same 
principle, prohibit you from eating bread and drinking coffee 
or from the enjoyment of any table or other comforts what- 
ever. It appears easily to be seen that the object of prohibi- 
tory legislation is not to interfere with individual profligacy, 
or to restrain in the least the natural desire to live well and 
dress decently and respectably. Its object is rather found to 
be precisely the opposite; that is, to aid and encourage all 
men in this laudable ambition: to remove from our fair State 
the greatest obstacle in the way of so many of our people in 
their efforts to attain them and be respectable and happy. 

Nor is this the main object of such laws. The experience 
of mankind fully demonstrates, and no one will for a moment 
dispute it, that intoxicating liquor is descructive and danger- 
ous to society at large ; that while a man may be a gorman- 
dizer and fill himself up with unwholesome victuals ; that 
while he may go continually dressed in the costliest " purple 
and fine linen," and yet not become vicious, blood-thirsty and 
dangerous, he can not fill up his stomach with " busthead," 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. I 27 

" tangle-foot," or any other kind of liquid malice afore- 
thought, without becoming dangerous to society and often- 
times the terror of his best friends on earth, for whose life- 
blood he becomes peculiarly thirsty. He becomes a raving 
madman, and often goes about " like a roaring lion, seeking 
whom he may devour." When in that fearfully insane con- 
dition,, he is apt to commit any crime whatever and most fre- 
quently satisfied with nothing less than murder. T^he wife of 
his bosom is not safe in his presence, his children hide from 
his terrible aspect, his best friends dare not approach him : 
he is crazy. He commits murder with apparent deliberation; 
he is restrained of his liberty and forced to become sober, 
when the knowledge of his awful deed first dawns upon his 
mind. He is afterwards put upon his trial for the offense ; he 
proves by a number of creditable witnesses that he was 
wholly unconscious of the act ; the law in its humanity says 
that a criminal intent is an essential ingredient in every of- 
fense and indispensable to legal conviction. The case is be- 
yond the reach of penal statutes, no system of laws can be 
sustained on principles of common justice and humanity that 
provides for the punishment of an act committed by a person, 
while in a state of unconsciousness or insanity from what- 
ever cause it may be produced, unless the act was previously 
contemplated and the insanity voluntarily brought about for 
the purpose of committing the offense and escaping the pen- 
alties through the medium of the plea of insanity. It is, 
indeed, strange how reasonable men can insist that the State 
can not legally protect her people from such dangers, that 
she must not interfere with a man'o right to kill and destroy 
with impunity. How any man can justify the exercise of any 
force or restraint whatever in the prevention of crime or of 
injury, and at the same time contend that prohibition is unjust 
and oppressive and contrary to the spirit of our institutions, 
I am unable to understand or even surmise. 



128 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

I can not understand by what right the State summarily 
puts a check on the importation and spread of infectious and 
contagious diseases through the means of quarantine orders 
and proclamations while she is to be handicapped by consti- 
tutional limitations which do not exist, and by that undefina- 
ble, intangible enemy of all legal restraint called personal 
liberty, we hear so much about, in her effort to check by law 
the spread of the deadliest contagion that ever infected human 
society. I frankly confess that I cannot understand it. Neither 
do I understand by what right and upon what principle the 
state can interfere with the sale of intoxicating liquors on the 
days set apart for popular elections, and how it is that the 
devotees of personal liberty do not rebel at the law requiring 
the saloons to be closed and their occupants to suspend busi- 
ness while the sovereigns are casting their ballots, if the right 
to traffic in whisky is so sacredly guaranteed by the spirit of 
our free institutions. By what right does the federal govern- 
ment prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor to the indian? 
If their is a higher law in this land that overreaches the 
authority of the State to interfere with this business and that 
paralyzes her outstretched arm in the protection of her peo- 
ple, I want to know why this power has not been invoked in 
an effort to resist even the first feeble attempt she has made 
to lay positive restraints upon the traffic ? It is not a question 
of how much the State may interfere, but as to her right to 
interfere in any manner or degree whatever, and if permitted 
at all, no limit can be fixed short of the absolute prohibition 
of the same, if necessary to the general welfare of the people 
at large.* 

*Hon. D. B. Culberson, congressman from Texas, in his open letter to 
the Anti-Prohibition Committee expresses himself boldly as follows: 

"I take great pleasure in making the statement that the democratic party 
is the devoted friend of the people. In this respect, indeed, it partakes 
largely of the 'personal characteristics of its founder, Mr. Jefferson. The 
party is thoroughly committed to that system of laws which secures to the 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. I 29 

There is an ancient and oft quoted legal maxim which de- 
clares that the welfare of the people is the highest law: if this 
is the correct maxim, and we can see no objection to the 
principle it embraces, then it necessarily follows that there 
may be a law which is above constitutions. In the very 
spirit of this established legal proverb the people find the 
unquestionable right to revolutionize and overturn the gov- 
ernment if its longer existence is subversive of the acknowl- 

citizen the largest liberty consistent with the welfare of the public. It 
regards government as a simple repository of right surrendered by the peo- 
ple upon trust, and esteems that government best which governs least. 
Influenced and inspired by such principles the democratic party has, from 
time to time, resisted the abridgement of personal liberty and rights when 
the same could be exercised and enjoyed without inflicting such evils upon 
the public as endangered good government and the general welfare of the 
people. You have been pleased to allude to the position of Mr. Jefferson 
upon sumptuary legislation. His position on that character of legislation 
is often used by the advocates of the liquor traffic against prohibition 
notwithstanding the fact that no law writer of his day and time classed 
prohibition with sumptuary legislation. It has been the labor of a 
later period to endeavor to extend the scope of sumptuary legislation, 
in order that the traffic in liquors, regardless of the public welfare, 
might be shielded from assault by the opinion of Mr. Jefferson. It may 
be said that had prohibition been submitted to the people of Virginia 
in his day and time, he would have voted against it, not upon the ground 
however, that the people did not possess the power and the right to protect 
themselves from an evil destructive of good order, but rather for the reason 
that the evils of the traffic had not then assumed such magnitude as to 
seriously endanger the welfare of the public. The question before the peo- 
ple of Texas involves existing conditions, not conditions which may have 
existed near a century ago. The evils of the liquor traffic, in Mr. Jeffer- 
son's time, pale into utter insignificance beside the monumental horrors that 
stalk through the land to-day hand- in-hand with this traffic. The feeble 
and insignificant power for harm exerted by the saloon in the earlier days 
of the republic has grown to be an overshadowing despotism. It assumes 
to control the franchise of freemen. It sets at defiance the laws enacted to 
preserve the good order of society. It enters the high and the low places 
of authority, and stamps its will over the will of the people. The wrecks 
of manhood which fill the land; the distress and bankruptcy wrought by its 
power; the onerous burdens of taxation imposed upon honest industry to 
defray the expenses of crime, the legitimate offspring of its influence, all 
show how deeply the public welfare is involved in the evils of the liquor 
traffic. For one, I believe the time has arrived when this despotism should 
be broken and overthrown, and the welfare of the people emancipated from 
its thraldom. 



130 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

edged rights and best interests of the people at large. It may 
be a dangerous experiment, but it is nevertheless true that 
constitutions can and ought to be abrogated and destroyed 
when demanded by the best interests of the people. Their 
establishment and maintenance can have no other legitimate 
object in view than the material and social welfare of the 
people for whom or by whom they have been adopted. This 
proposition seems too plain for an elaborate argument. Ad- 
mitting this premise to be sound in principle, then it must 
necessarily follow that the people have a national and ina- 
lienable right to provide for their own preservation in spite 
of constitutions, in spite of those time-honored principles of 
any and all political parties which have^nothing but their an- 
tiquity to recommend them. If time-honored folly is to con- 
trol legislation in the very face of experimental wisdom and 
statesmanship, then why make an effort to improve on the 
system or systems of government in vogue in the days of our 
unskillful ancestors. Principle is principle and it gains no 
force whatever from the fact that it was discovered to be prin- 
ciple in the remotest ages of the past. If it is not correct 
within itself, it can not grow into perfection though it should 
antedate the sun. When truth springs forth from whatever 
source she may come, she is full fledged and remains the 
identical truth that it was when discovered, through all time 
and eternity. To talk about time-honored truth or time- 
honored principle is as meaningless as the phrase, "perfect 
perfection." And yet you constantly hear demagogues and 
perhaps others not properly so classed talk learnedly and 
pompously about the "time-honored principles of Democ- 
racy" which have in all the years of the past opposed every 
character of legislation interfering with the right of the peo- 
ple to get drunk whenever it suited their inclination to do so, 
regardless of the fearful consequences to society at large. It 
is not now and never has been the purpose of prohibitory 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 131 

legislation to interfere with any man's personal liberty to do 
just as he pleases, getting drunk included, provided he does 
not interfere with the right of other people to be let alone in 
the peaceful enjoyment of their rights and their privileges. 
And if all human experience did not demonstrate and prove 
that drunkenness can not be made to let soberness alone, that 
drunkards can not be made by any power on earth to keep 
their murderous hands off of unoffending and innocent peo- 
ple, there would be no clamor or demand for prohibitory 
legislation. Mankind are generally disposed to attend to 
their own business, especially while sober themselves. 

You will not find one ranting and intolerant prohibitionist 
out of all the hopeless cranks in the cause who cares three 
straws how much whisky you drink, or how much of anything 
else you may eat or drink, however injuriously it may affect 
you personally if you will only be quiet and peaceable while 
you are doing it. As mean and illiberal as these pro- 
hibitionists are in the estimation of some people, they are 
willing that you may kill yourself on the very meanest and 
most poisonous whisky to be found in the most loathsome 
doggery in the country, if you can furnish adequate security 
that you will in nowise interfere with sober people in the 
legitimate pursuit of their business or pleasure. The trouble 
is, that no sufficient security can be offered. It is ever un- 
safe for a man to be within pistol-shot of drunkards, and the 
right of self-preservation, the love of life, and the desire to be 
let alone themselves, are the motives which prompt them to 
act vigorously in the matter. If it is mere bigotry and a 
spirit of meddlesome intolerance which moves them to act, 
and not a desire to protect themselves and society from the 
dangers incident to the sale of whisky, then they must surely 
possess a degree of liberality which genuine bigotry and in- 
tolerance do not possess. The very statement is paradoxical 
and absurd. Such men do not throw away their means and 



I32 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

their valuable time in the pursuit of such delusive phantoms. 
They are too selfish for that. On the other hand, if they 
prosecute this war against whisky because it is hurtful to 
themselves and to society, they are unquestionably right, be- 
cause self-preservation is the first law of our nature. In 
either event these " crank " prohibitionists must be right. 
They show themselves to be running over with liberality, 
notwithstanding the fact that they are the most selfish and il- 
liberal people on earth. More than all others, they show 
themselves true to the laws of their being. Glorious dilemma ! 
Liberal in their illiberality. Wrong in the very act of doing 
right. 

Before proceeding further with the discussion of the first 
proposition which I started out in the beginning of this 
chapter to establish, namely that the doctrine upon which pro- 
hibitory laws are based is correct and in strict accord with every 
principle of human justice and natural right. I desire to 
examine the constituent elements of right and of its opposite 
wrong. We sometimes speak in a general way of right in the 
abstract and may think in a metaphysical sort of way that 
there is such a thing outside of the visionary and intangible 
conceptions of the human imagination. I take the position 
that there is no such thing as right or its counter-part wrong 
independent of existing realities. We will take for our first 
example the first person who appeared upon earth whether he 
came in the glory of his perfection from the plastic hand of 
the Creator, or was the spontaneous product of evolution. 
Whether his name was Adam and had for his home the 
garden of Eden, or Kalakaua I., and enjoyed his personal 
liberty upon the Sandwich Islands. Suppose, that he was 
the only living, breathing creature upon the earth, and while 
that may never have been a fact, we may for the sake of this 
argument, imagine such to have been his condition. If there 
were other living beings that could suffer from his acts, then 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 133 

he would find himself bound by the impulses of natural 
justice to avoid and refrain from acts of cruelty to those ani- 
mated creatures. These creeping things, however low in the 
order of living beings, would have a natural right to keep on 
living until they accomplished the purpose of their existence, 
and this man Adam or Kalakaua I., however strong his in- 
clination to cruelty and whatever may have been his concep- 
tion of personal liberty, could not gratify such inclination 
without a violation of natural law, natural right — eternal and 
unchangeable justice. His personal liberty would be 
hampered and restrained in proporton to the degree of his 
inclination, and the opportunities afforded for its gratification. 
I am speaking now of natural rights without reference to any 
human law for the punishment of the offense of cruelty to an- 
imals. But suppose that there were no inferior grades of an- 
imated creatures, and to make the isolation of this first man 
complete, let us suppose that there were no superior being to 
which he owed any duty or obligation whatever. We now 
have him, indeed, "monarch of all he surveys/' and of a great 
deal more than he can survey, though he should live a million 
of years. Now let him contemplate, if he will, the distinction 
between right and wrong in the abstract. Put yourself in his 
place, and with all of your powers of abstract reasoning, can 
you draw the most "vague conception" of such distinction? 
If you think so, then give it a trial. Let your thoughts take 
upon themselves the wings of the morning and traverse the 
dead waste of the universe, and, like Noah's dove, they will re- 
turn to rest upon the contemplation of your own hopeless sol- 
itude, and they will not bring from their wandering a single 
conception of right in the abstract. The only idea of right 
of which^the mind would be capable under such circumstan- 
ces would spring from the hot-bed of our own selfishness. We 
may find out something of the law of self-preservation, but be- 
yond that all is impenetrable intellectual darkness. There 



134 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

can be no possible conception of right in the absence of obli- 
gation. The idea of obligation and personal duty presup- 
poses the existence of a plurality of beings to be affected by 
the terms or restraints of such obligation or duty, whether it 
points upward to God, outward to humanity, or downward to 
the very worms of the dust. . Obligations and duties do not, 
and in the very nature of things, cannot exist in the abstract. 
They are inseparably bound to actual, tangible things. They 
reach not beyond the well denned limits of reality. The con- 
clusion then follows at once that right does not and can not 
exist alongside of obligation and duty. It can only exist in a 
condition of complete isolation. It vanishes "like the base- 
less fabric of a vision" at the very approach of the conception 
of a plurality of animated beings, regardless of their relation 
to each other — regardless of their rank in the various grada- 
tions of breathing existence. I can not hope to make this 
proposition more clear to the understanding of the intelligent 
reader. The world is full, almost to overflowing, of living 
beings. The next step leads us naturally to the funeral of 
personal liberty, whose mocking ghost today stalks aimlessly 
abroad in the land, frightening the weak and faltering resolu- 
tion of a people struggling to free themselves from the great- 
est curse that ever scourged to desperation the nations of the 
earth. 

Personal liberty, absolute personal liberty, in the presence 
of the countless duties and obligations of civilized society ! 
What a ponderous absurdity ! How long, oh how long wilt 
thou haunt with thy grinning ghastliness the trembling quail- 
ing intelligences of this enlightened country? How long wilt 
thou go forth at the bidding of unscrupulous demagogues who 
would sacrifice all human happiness to the unhallowed ob- 
jects of their vaulting, insatiate ambition? 

Returning now to the question of right which I started out to 
discuss. The question "is it right to prohibit the manufacture 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. I35 

and sale of intoxicating liquors by law," is about on a par 
with the question, is it right to do right. The very statement 
of the question in view of the experience of all mankind, in 
full view of the gigantic, widespread, and desolating evils 
which cry aloud for a practical remedy, not only suggests, 
but positively demands an affirmative answer. The many 
differences as to the manner of accomplishing the desired re- 
sult, the speedy and complete suppression and destruction of 
the liquor traffic have nothing whatever to do with the princi- 
ple innvolved in the discussion of this branch of the question. 
That will be considered hereafter. The ideas of duty and 
right are inseparable from each other. Is it our duty to do 
what we can to promote the happiness and welfare of others 
as well as ourselves ? If so, then is it not right for us to use 
those available and effective means which are lawful to ac- 
complish the result? If it is right to destroy a man's busi- 
ness by moral suasion and prayer can it be wrong to destroy 
it by law? The decision of the question of right does not 
hinge upon the character of the means. If the preachers and 
noble women of the country were to prevail in their fervent 
prayers to a sin avenging God to rain down liquid fire and 
brimstone from heaven upon all the saloons in the country 
and destroy them from the face of the earth, as was done in 
the days of Sodom and Gomorrah (which with all of their 
wickedness could not have compared with a dozen or so 
average saloons of the present age of the world,) would the 
saloon keepers not think it a flagrant interference with their 
personal liberty? Would they not likely object to the con- 
stitutionality of the measure? It is clearly to be seen that 
there is no possible difference in point of the principles in- 
volved. Is it a more flagrant interference with personal 
rights to force a man to do what is conceded to be right, 
through the instrumentality of law, than to forch him into 
measures by main strength and by putting him in fear? If a 



I36 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

man deserves hanging ought we not to have a law by which 
he can be hung decently and in order ? Or ought we rather 
to poison him or bore him to death with moral suasion and 
if that should not be effectual, swing him unbidden into a 
fearful eternity on the summary order of Judge Lynch? I 
care not to pursue this argument any further. I will next 
take up and discuss the question of expediency. 

It is said by a great many people that prohibition does not 
prohibit. Some of them will pretend that they believe that 
prohibition is right in its objects and purposes, but that "it 
won't work," that they are fully satisfied that "it won't work.'" 
As a reason for this conscientious conviction they will say 
that drunkenness and intemperance generally is a kind of dis- 
ease, and that when it gets clutches on a man, he will have 
whisky or blood. They will go on to show how easy it is for 
a man to send off and get whisky, and that the law will be so 
defective that it can not be enforced; that as provision is 
made for its sale for medical and mechanical purposes, un- 
scrupulous physicians and druggists will conspire together to 
violate the law without the fear of God or his satanic majes- 
ty before their'eyes. Therefore, prohibition is a farce and a 
practical failure. Under the chapter on local option I have 
already answered these arguments, I think, to the satisfaction 
of every unprejudiced reader. Prohibition, either local or 
general, is not intended for the reformation of confirmed 
drunkards. No reasonable prohibitionist expects it. Of course 
there are some men engaged in the cause who have never 
doubted that the'adoption of any sort of a prohibitory law 
will absolutely put an end to drunkenness, that it will destroy 
the very appetite itself, and every latent inclination of the 
transgressor to trample upon the laws of the country. That 
no murders or robberies or other high crimes and misdemean- 
ors can possibly occur in a town, county, precinct, or State 
where prohibition prevails. But, as is well known, the fool- 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 137 

killer may find plenty of work to do in other quarters. While 
he would slay off a few fanatical fools who could be very well 
spared in the contest, he would make a clear sweep of the op- 
position, and not one would be left to tell the tale of their 
violent taking off, or to sing the requiem of their folly and 
shame over their dishonored remains. They plant themselves 
upon the established and immovable impediment to all human 
progress, the fool's motto, "daddy did." The idea, if idea it 
can be called, that if "daddy" carried his grain to mill, or to 
the still-house with a big rock in one end of his sack to bal- 
ance the end filled with grain, it would be disrespectful to his 
memory to do otherwise, if acted upon, would put an end to 
all human progress. It would drag the race down to a posi- 
tion far below the brutes. These people, and they constitute 
the great, unthinking, non-progressive masses of the world in 
all ages, are the ones who are particularly fond of the word 
"crank," Like the man who cried out "Beef! Beef!" at a cer- 
tain perilous time during the great struggle of our ancestors 
for constitutional liberty, they cry, "Crank! Crank!" every 
time a man discovers and attempts to put into practical oper- 
ation any kind of an improvement whatever. 

Like the greasers of Mexico, who destroy every agricul- 
tural implement that is attempted to be introduced among 
them through the efforts of an advanced civilization, these 
" numbskulls " do and say every thing in their power to im- 
pede and effectually stay the onward march of moral and in- 
tellectual progress. They delight to mock at every effort of 
Heaven-born genius in the discovery of hidden truth and to 
clear away the thick, dark mists of popular ignorance and 
prejudice which have veiled them through the countless ages 
of the past. They pursue the pale, sickly form of the young 
dauntless pioneer in the fields of valuable discovery with that 
hell-born epithet " crank, crank," which has just enough of 
conventional meaning and disrespectful import to inflict a 



138 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

terrible wound upon the feelings of a sensitive nature to make 
him feel miserable, but not sufficiently pregnant with personal 
insult to justify an outbreak of personal resentment. I have 
heard this word " crank" as applied to the progressive ele- 
ment of mankind, to men who are unwilling to sleep away 
their lives in intellectual inactivity and idleness, not daring 
to question the accepted follies of their " daddies" or to make 
even a feeble effort or to attempt one solitary step in the dis- 
covery of truth and the destruction of " time-honored " folly, 
or the explosion of " constitutional " error, until I am heartily 
tired and disgusted. If there is one spurious word in the 
English language or its derivatives that I would expunge in 
preference to all others, that I would sink so deep into the 
voiceless gulf of oblivion that it would never more rise to the 
surface to mock the aspirations of rising genius struggling 
against popular error and prejudice, that word would be no 
other than " crank. " To those of my readers who are con- 
scious of the rectitude of their course who have in their war- 
fare against whisky kept aloof from bitter personalities and 
personal vituperations, but who have had nothing in view but 
the redemption of our people from the curse of drunkenness 
and intemperance, I would here say be strong in your pur- 
pose and in your determination to conquer. Let those huge 
incubuses who have about as much energy and intellectuality 
as a jelly-fish cry out, " Crank, crank," to their heart's con- 
tent. It will not hurt you in the long run. I would rather 
be a crank on the subject of prohibition than to be counted 
wise in the camp of the ungodly followers of Bacchus. 
Though I should be crowned with every possible honor they 
could bestow, I could not escape from myself; I could not 
escape the conviction of my own mind that I would be a con- 
summate fool, if not for the want of sense I would still be a 
fool. But I now find that I have unconsciously strayed away 
from the subject under immediate discussion — the expediency 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 139 

of prohibitory laws and particularly of State prohibition, 
Is it expedient to have laws of any kind for the government 
and regulation of the conduct of the people? If not, then it 
must follow that the prohibition of the manufacture and sale 
of intoxicating liquors is expedient, and if not, then it ought 
not to prevail. If we cannot prevent a man by punishment 
from manufacturing and selling the vile stuff, we can some- 
times punish him for doing it just the same as we are now 
and then able to put a man into the penitentiary who has an 
inordinate fondness for horseflesh, just the same as we can 
once in a while force a man who overdraws on his personal 
liberty to do all sorts of mischief in violation of positive law 
to contribute quite liberally of his substance to the support 
of the government and to keep the wheels of justice greased 
for such cases. 

It is doubtful if you can head off from the hell to which he 
is rapidly drifting, the poor, pitiful, helpless inebriate who is 
but a mere puppet in the hands of his master by the terror of 
law, however rigorous and severe the penalties may be for its 
violation. A drunkard laughs at consequences however dire- 
ful thetr character. The fearful result following protracted 
debauch, the terrible sufferings he is forced to endure pend- 
ing the efforts of nature to restore him from the burning 
effects of alcoholic stimulants, and the certainty with which 
they are inflicted, it would seem ought to be sufficient of 
themselves to deter him from a repetition of the offense against 
the laws of his own physical nature, but we all know from 
common observation and experience that they are wholly 
ineffectual. The infliction of the ordinary pains and penal- 
ties of the law would not be more so. They would be worse 
than a failure. They have ever proved such so far as I know. 
But that fact does not in the least argue that the manufacturer 
and seller who is generally sober and possessed of average 
self-control, can not be made to respect the laws which put 



140 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

an end to his nefarious traffic, just as the same man is forced 
to respect and obey other laws enacted for the benefit of 
society. These men as defiant of law as they threaten to be 
in the event prohibition is carried are I think sensible of the 
law's efficacy in the prevention of theft, robbery or murder. 
They say that they will sell whisky in defiance of the law. 
They ought to give us an earnest of their good faith by rob- 
bing somebody in open daylight as an evidence of their utter 
disregard for the law. 



CHAPTER IX. 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 

CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW — PROHIBITION AND THE DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY. THE LOSS OF REVENUE AND DESTRUCTION OF PROP- 
ERTY. IMPORTATION OF LIQUORS. AN OPEN LETTER DIS- 
SECTED. 



Under our peculiar system of government every citizen of 
the United States is protected by two constitutions and amen- 
able to the laws of two seperate and distinct governments — 
the State and the Federal. It was the purpose of our repre- 
sentatives in the conventions framing these constitutions to so 
clearly define the powers and limitations of each that there 
would be no conflict of authority between them. To do this 
required a degree of statesmanship and political wisdom and 
foresight, almost amounting to prophetic inspiration. 

While impossible to frame two such systems of laws to 
operate contemporaneously upon the same subjects without 
producing some conflict, the founders of the Federal Consti- 
tution came very nearly accomplishing that result. Of course 
the erroneous constructions of the various provisions of the 
State and Federal Constitutions and the laws emanating from 
and under their authority could not by any possible foresight 
have been provided against by the founders of the govern- 
ment. To these erroneous and often absurd constructions 
may be attributed much of the trouble that has sprung up in 
the administration of these two systems of laws. Much of 
this threatened conflict of authority has been obviated by the 

(mo ' 



142 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

two different rules of construction applied in the determina- 
tion of the respective powers of the two governments. 

In construing and passing upon the constitutionality of a 
law enacted by Congress, the courts study the Federal consti- 
tution to ascertain whether the power is expressly given by 
the instrument to Congress to make such a law. If the power 
is not clearly granted by the terms of the Constitution, the 
law ought to be declared void and inoperative. The Demo- 
cratic theory demands a strict construction of these powers.* 
The Republican theory is, that they ought to be liberally 
construed, even to the extent of usurping many of the long 
recognized powers of the several States. For instance, the 
Republicans take in the whole scope of government when 
expediency demands it under that sweeping provision of the 
Federal Constitution which gives to Congress the power to 
provide measures for the common defense. Every conceiv- 
able sheme that may tend in the remotest degree to contrib- 
ute to the purposes of national defense, though it be apparent- 
ly foreign to the purpose is embraced within the scope of 
that omnibus provision, and is held to be constitutional by 
the leaders of the Republican party. And this is substantially 
the difference between the two as national parties. The 
courts in construing a statute with reference to our state 
Constitution consider only the limitation of the powers of 
the legislature, and if they nowhere find in the organic law 
of the State a provision clearly prohibiting the Legislature 
from the exercise of the power assumed it is held to be con- 
stitutional. On this point there is no difference between the 
two parties as I understand them. 

Having said this much upon the two rules of construction 
as applied to the powers of the State and Federal govern- 



*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively cr to 
the people. (Const. United States). 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 1 43 

ment, I now come to the discussion of the main question be- 
fore us, the constitutionality of prohibitory legislation. The 
idea of the Federal government's interfering with the police 
regulations of any State never could have entered the minds 
of the framers of its constitution. Neither could it have 
been intended by them to hamper the State governments in 
the execution or enforcement of such regulations as exclusively 
pertain to the internal affairs of the States. For men claim- 
ing to be Democrats of the Jeffersonian or any other school, 
to insist that the Federal Constitution ought to be so con- 
strued, is an inconsistency that I am wholly unable to recon- 
cile or explain. Even the Republicans, as liberal and lati- 
tudinous as they are in the construction of the Federal Con- 
stitution, do not claim that there was any such intention on 
the part of the framers of that instrument. Then, how can it 
be that a man who claims to be one of the recognized oracles 
of Democracy, will contend that any law enacted by a State, 
either by its Legislature or by a majority of its qualified vo- 
ters, as in cases like the one now being considered by the 
people of Texas, having for its sole object the regulation of 
its own police affairs is inimcal to the provisions or limita- 
tions of the Federal Constitution ? This, to me, is a conun- 
drum. I do not attempt its solution. These latitudinarian 
Democrats talk eloquently about the repeated infringements 
of the general government, upon the rights reserved to the 
States and to the people, and especially with reference to its 
judicial usurpation, and yet they make an argument against 
the constitutiunality of prohibitory laws, and unblushingly 
stultify themselves by assuming that the Federal Constitution 
in t^rms, limits and restricts the rights and powers of the 
States to attend to their own domestic affairs and that, too, in 
matters in which the general government has not the remo- 
test concern. How on earth does prohibition affect the ad- 
ministration of its affairs, I would like very much to know. 



144 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

If the people of other States composing the Union dislike 
prohibition in Texas, they can certainly stay away ; they are 
not bound to come here and submit themselves to the priva- 
tions it attempts to enforce. If they do not wish to surrender 
their personal liberty to manufacture, sell and drink whisky, 
they can stay in a country where they can. But they say 
that the Constitution of our fathers declares that no man 
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due pro- 
cess of law ; they claim that prohibition does, or attempts to 
do these things, or, at least some of them ; therefore prohibi- 
tion is unconstitutional. This is the argument and all there 
is in it. Now let us examine and see what it leads to. The 
first question to consider is : What is due process of law ? 
Who is to prescribe the mode of procedure ? 

True democracy says the Federal government can not do 
it without violence to the rights of the States, and as is known, 
even the Federal courts are bound to respect the general 
rules of procedure and practice of the States where they are 
sitting. Suppose, for instance, that the laws of Texas were 
ever so tyrannical and oppressive, and suppose that the pro- 
ceedings of her courts were summary, vague, or indefinite in 
their character? Suppose a judge should by virtue of his 
authority to punish for contempts, sentence without a trial by 
jury an innocent man to imprisonment for life, for an alleged 
contempt of his court, assuming, of course, that the State law 
gives him such power: will any respectable lawyer in Texas; 
will the able and distinguished Senator, and the honorable 
gentleman of Navarro who occupies with so much distinction 
and credit a seat in the lower house of Congress from Texas, 
who has taken high constitutional grounds in opposition to 
prohibitory laws, claim that the Federal government has the 
power under that provision of the Constitution to relieve him 
from imprisonment ? If such a proceeding is not depriving 
a citizen of his liberty without due process of law, I am un- 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 145 

able to imagine such a case. If the general government can 
constitutionally relieve him from a life-sentence, it can, most 
assuredly, relieve him of any shorter time. We have some 
peculiar statutes in Texas relative to property rights, laws 
which are strange and perhaps unreasonable and unjust in the 
estimation of some persons who have been raised under the 
segis of the common law of England. We have some few 
rules of procedure and practice which are peculiar to our 
own system of jurisprudence. Suppose one of our citizens or 
any body else who has invested in property in Texas, should 
take it into his head that there is no such thing as due process 
of law in the administration of justice in this State, and ap- 
peal to the Federal government to enforce the plain provision 
of its Constitution above stated. What would all Democrats 
think if "Uncle Sam" should send a commission down here 
to Texas with instructions to establish an authority to compel 
our courts to adopt and enforce some new-fangled due pro- 
cess of law ? We would secede from the Union. To bring 
the absurdity right up to the question at issue, suppose the 
Federal government should say to the people of Texas either 
through a harsh construction of the Constitution or by a law 
of Congress enacted for the purpose of enforcing the letter 
and spirit of that provision, "You shall not prohibit the 
manufacture and sale of whisky, liquid fire, dynamite and 
other dangerous, destructive, and demoralizing substances or 
commodities, although they are destroying the lives, health, 
and property of your people and threatening the ultimate 
overthrow of society itself ? The very ghost of liberty and 
the much-slandered and misrepresented spirit of old-fashion- 
ed Democracy would rise up in their terrible fury, and cry 
out, "Scourge them back," with thunder tones that would 
echo and re-echo throughout the length and breadth of the 
Union. We would not submit to it. We would not have to 
submit to it, because it would be recognized as the signal of 



I46 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

the approaching dissolution and complete overthrow of our 
long-cherished Republican institutions. "O, Shame, where 
is thy blush ?" Such Democracy has not been handed down 
to this wicked and perverse generation of professional dema- 
gogues by our honored forefathers. This same question has 
been decided time and again by the higher courts, not only 
of our own State, but of the Federal government. So has the 
objection that prohibitory laws are sumptuary in their nature* 

Such laws were decided constitutional by the Supreme 
Court of the United States at a time when that court was com- 
posed of unquestioned Democrats. It was decided by Tany, 
by McLean, and many others whose personal views of the con- 
stitution were in strict harmony and accord with the ablest 
expounders of the Democratic theory of government. It has 
been decided time and again, and, so often, that the courts of 
the country everywhere regard it as a settled question, and re- 
fuse to go behind the long line of decisions establishing the 
constitutionality of prohibitory legislation by the states in 
their sovereign and independent capacity. It is not neces- 
sary to discuss the constitutionality of the proposed amend- 
ment with reference to our own State Constitution. If the 
amendment should pass and become a part of the organic law 
of the State, it would, I should think, harmonize sufficiently 
with other parts of the State Constitution. 

I propose now to discuss an objection to prohibitory legis- 
lation which is perhaps of more practical importance to the 
people of Texas at this time than any other which suggests 
itself for our consideration with reference to the subject be- 
fore us. An objection that has done and is now doing more 
to stay the impending revolution on the temperance question, 
particularly in the southern states, than all others combined, 
and yet it is in truth and in fact the most frivolous and unten- 
able of them all. That objection is, that prohibition is un- 
democratic. 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 147 

Such are the political prejudices of the people at large, such 
is their devotion to the empty sound of a meaningless name, 
that they will cling to its memory; the mere shadow of a long 
departed substance in spite of every effort of reason. Go ask the 
great mass of the people (and I say it in all kindness) what is 
Democracy? What are the peculiar principles and theories of 
government which distinguish it from other political organi- 
zations? With the fewest number of exceptions they will tell 
you Democracy is Democracy. "My father was a Democrat 
of the Jockson school, or of the Calhoun type; I have been 
raised in the Democratic ranks, and, 'like Mrs. Macauber,' I 
'never can desert it'." Let an unscrupulous demagogue — and 
Texas is full of them — (no personalities are intended) raise 
the war whoop against any measure for the relief of the people 
"It is un-Democratic," and they respond, "Down with it, cru- 
cify its advocates," and that, too, without reference to its mer- 
its. We all know this too well to require further reference to 
those political prejudices, and we must not fail to recognize 
them in every attempted improvement upon the "time hon- 
ored ' follies of our "daddies." If I can get the patient at- 
tention of my readers for a short time, I believe that I can es- 
tablish to every one who is open to conviction, that prohibi- 
tion is not only Damocratic, but that it is very decidedly so. 
Whatever slanderous misrepresentations have been made by 
its inveterate enemies; however much injustice its pretended 
exponents have done in their insatiate desire for political pref- 
erment, true Democracy "and undefiled" means nothing more 
nor less than a government by the people, and that the ma- 
jority shall rule in all matters when the individual rights or 
preferences of the minority are not guarded and vouchsafed 
to them by constitutional inhibitions upon the legislative will. 
These canstitutional barriers are themselves but the chrystal- 
ization of the popular will which is the only solid and safe ba- 
sis of all positive law. 



I48 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

The will of the majority under the guidance of intelligent 
leadership is ever supreme. It makes and unmakes constitu- 
tions ; one day it may establish a government, and the next 
day pull down and destroy it. What the majority of the 
people do in the majesty of their power in the very nature of 
things cannot be undemocratic, whatever may be the opinion 
of the minority. I am now speaking of pure and undefiled 
democracy, without reference to the ever-changing policies 
which have at different times in the history of the democratic 
party, constituted its distinguishing features in the contest for 
ascendency with other political organizations. I have ever 
supposed that the democratic party was in favor of the en- 
forcement of the law, that it favored the suppression of crime, 
that the grand object of its mission has been to secure, as it 
professes to desire, "the greatest good to the greatest number." 
If I have been misled in this important particular, I am 
anxious to know it and know it at once. I never could con- 
ceive that a political party could possibly flourish or succeed 
without at least making some pretense that its object is the 
amelioration of the moral, social or financial condition of the 
people. I do not believe that any party can exist very long 
whose avowed purpose is to encourage crime, to cultivate 
vice, to sow the seeds of anarchy, to unbridle and turn loose 
upon a helpless and unoffending peasantry all of the furies of 
a material hell. If such is the mission of the great demo- 
cratic party, the party of free government and constitutional 
liberty, it is a self-convicted nuisance and ought to be abated 
at once. But that I may not be misunderstood, I repeat 
that such is not the mission of the great party of the Constitu- 
tion. Those men, it matters not how high their position in 
the government, who have undertaken to commit the demo- 
cratic party to whisky, have spoken without authority. That 
distinguished gentleman who not long since declared upon 
the floor of the Senate of Texas that it was as " impossible to 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 1 49 

run the Baptist church without water, as to run the demo- 
cratic party without whisky/'* represented only the besotted 
element of the party for which he attempted to speak. 

I cannot believe that this gentleman duly considered the 
import of this humiliating confession when he made it, or 
rather when he assumed to do so in the name of a party 
which he has so much dishonored. I am charitable enough 
to believe that he said it in jest or that it was a mere slip of 
the tongue unbridled by ordinary prudence and discretion. 
The time has certainly come when the law-abiding and peace- 
able citizens of Texas should rise up in their majesty and res- 
cue the fair name of this daughter of constitutional liberty 
from the mire and disgrace into which she is being led by the 
cringing demagoues, who would barter away every jewel she 
possesses for a single mess of political pottage. I call upon 
every true lover of his party and of his country to rally once 
more, and in the name of constitutional liberty and free, sober 
and honest government to wrest the soiled and tattered ban- 
ner from the polluted hands of such leaders, before it forever 
trails in the dust. We may as well know the truth at once, 
however painful it may be, that if the democratic party alligns 
itself with the reeling, slimy, and seedy hosts of the whisky 
element, it is doomed to an early disolution, and it ought to 
be thus, however much we may regret its decay and demise. 
Young Democrats, whose bosoms are throbbing with ambition 
whose hopes are gilded by the brightest rays of political as- 
pirations, let me warn you as one who feels a deep and abid- 
ing interest in your welfare, as he does in the lasting glory 
and prosperity of his adopted State, which he loves as his 
own life, to forsake at once the leadership of those men who 
would commit the people's party and the people themselves 



*Senator Burgess speech against the submission of amendment, Twen- 
tieth Legislature of Texas. 



150 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

to the loathsome service of the liquor traffic. Whatever 
bright aspirations you may have, whatever prospects and 
deserts, I tell you that they will be forever engulphed in dis- 
appointment and despair and speedily at that, if you stake 
them upon the liquor traffic in this, the struggle which is now 
going on between order and disorder, constitutional govern- 
ment and murderous anarchy. Plant yourselves upon your 
honest convictions of right, and whatever may be the result, 
however much you may be sneered at by demagogues and 
timeservers, you will succeed at last, and you need not doubt 
it in the least althogh overpowered and repulsed at the first 
onset. But whether you should succeed in the object of your 
ambition or not, it is better by far that you should be disap- 
pointed than to accept transitory honors from the corrupting 
hands of the whisky influence.* 

*Hon. Jno. H. Reagan, U. S. Senator elect from Texas, and a Democrat 
of the old school, in reply to an invitation from a number of anti-prohibi- 
tion leaders to join their side of the question, writes as follows: 

"If I had liesure to engage in this discussion, with all respect for opin- 
ions of the meeting you represent, I could not concur with the views ex- 
pressed in your letter. While I have heretofore felt constrained to oppose 
prohibition because its friends sought to make it a political issue and to an- 
tagonize and overthrow the Democratic party, that reason does not now ex- 
ist; and I am not inclined, by speech or vote, to countenance the evils flow- 
ing from the selling and drinking of intoxicating liquors as now practiced, 
or to give to them the moral support of public opinion or the protection of 
the state government. 

In every community we find men, once honored and respected, reduced 
to poverty, wretchedness and dishonor by spending their money and time 
in drinking-saloons; wives weighed down with grief and sorrow and want, 
and heart-broken, and helpless children growing up in ignorance, beggary 
and vice, because husbands and fathers have been made drunkards and 
vagabonds by patronizing the drinking saloons. Millions of dollars are in- 
vested in this business of making men drunkards and in producing the des- 
olation and ruin of women and children, which if employed in agriculture, 
manufacturing or commercial pursuits, and directed by the talents and time 
wasted in these drinking houses, would add untold millions to the aggrega- 
ted wealth of the state, and make as many thousands of happy families as 
are now made miserable because this money and time are given to the sell- 
ing and drinking of intoxicating liquors. 

The framers of our State Constitution, having reference to these evils, 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 151 

A favorite and often effectual argument against prohibitory 
laws of any character is, that they deprive the State of hun- 
dreds of thousands of dollars annually contributed by saloon- 
keepers and whisky-sellers to the support of the government 
in the way of taxation or license. It is further claimed that 
thousands of men are thereby thrown out of business, and 
left with their families to surfer and die for the want of legit- 
imate employment. The great loss resulting to the State 
from the enactment and enforcement of such laws is piled up 
and exaggerated until it transcends the bounds of possible 
computation. This argument is intended to reach the mer- 
cenary impulses of selfish human nature, and is often stronger 
than the powers of reason and moral suasion in influen- 
cing mankind in their action upon matters of the greatest 
concern. Convince a man whose avarice predominates over 

provided that "the legislature shall, at its first session, enact a law whereby 
the qualified voters of any county, justice's precinct, town or city, by a ma- 
jority vote, from time to time, may determine whether the sale of intoxicat- 
ing liquors shall be prohibited within the prescribed limits." It would be 
no great innovation upon this principel for the people of this state to adopt 
a constitutional provision declaring that the manufacture, sale and exchange 
of intoxicating liquors, except for medical, mechanical and scientific pur- 
poses, is hereby prohibited in the State of Texas." The State Democratic 
convention, which met at Galveston last summer, inserted in its platform of 
principles a declaration, in substance, that a citizen might be a local option- 
ist or a prohibitionist, and at the same time be a Democrat. 

The present legislature wisely determined, in submitting the question of 
the adoption of the prohibition amendment by a vote of the people, that 
the election should be held at a time when no other election was to be held. 
in order that the people might pass upon that question unembarassed by 
any other political questions or elections, so that the election should be non- 
partisan. In view of these facts, with all respect for the meeting at Austin, 
and its committee, I must express my regret that any effort has been made 
to make a party question of it; and especially do I regret that Democrats 
should seek to identify that great and grand historic party with the fortunes 
and fate of whisky shops, drunkards and criminals. 

There is a broad difference between laws which interfere with legitimate 
trade and with such as would interfere with the purchase and sale of neces- 
sary food, drink and raiment, called sumptuary laws, and laws which have 
for their object the prevention and punishment of crime and the preserva- 
tion of public morals and decency. And I think it hardly just to the mem- 



152 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

the moral sensibilities of his nature, that a certain line of con- 
duct is conducive to the promotion of his own interest, and he 
will pursue it in spite of every consideration of morality and 
justice that can possibly be brought to bear on his mind. He 
can not be made to consider any corresponding evil or dis* 
aster that may result to his neighbor. Rather than pay a few 
cents more in the way of increased taxation, he would see 
the complete destruction of social order, and especially if he 
felt assured that his pecuniary interest would not be involved 
in the disaster. He would be perfectly willing to submit to 
every other evil that might result from the act, provided his 
accumulated store of filthy lucre did not suffer. And all for 
what ? " Gold, the admiration of fools and knaves." 

But do not understand me by this slight digression from 
the main question to admit that the adoption of prohibitory 

ory of Mr. Jefferson to assume that he would not have recognized this dis- 
tinction. 

I have, during all the years of my manhood, been a Democrat of the 
straightest sect, and an earnest and enthusiastic disciple of Thomas Jefter- 
son, whom I regord as the greatest political philosopher and statesman this 
country has ever produced. And I would be as far from desiring to see 
laws passed which would interfere with the freedom of legitimate commerce 
or which would undertake to control the purchase, sale and use of necessary 
food, drink or apparel as any one could be. But I believe it to be the duty 
of the people, in a lawful manner, to protect themselves and society against 
the evils of the improper sale and use of intoxicating liquors. If I have not 
always so felt, it has been in a great degree because I was unwilling to allow 
any outside issue to subvert or cause the overthrow of the Democratic party 
whose principles I believe necessary to the preservation of our free consti- 
tutional system of government. We now have the opportunity to promote 
sobriety, thrift and happiness without endangering the success and perpetua- 
tion of the principles of the Demacratic party, and I am in favor ot doing 
so; and I shall at the coming election so vote, not because I believe prohibi- 
tion the most efficient remedy which could be adopted for these evils, but 
because in my judgment it favors a policy which will do much for the im- 
provement of the condition of our people pecunarily, socially and morally ,> 
and to-ward placing them on a higher and better plane of civilization. I 
hope you will not consider it a breach of propriety for me to make this 
answer through an open letter, as I may have no other opportunity to state 
the reason for the vote I shall give on this question. And I beg to assure 
you, gentlemen, of my great respect for you individually and collectively 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 153 

laws, however widespreading and stringent in their operation, 
results in financial loss to the State or to the people. In the 
first place, the whole license system is wrong, but that branch 
of the question will be pretermitted in this connection, to be 
taken up and thoroughly discussed in a future chapter of this 
work. We will suppose that in a county of twenty-thousand 
people we have as many as ten saloons, each paying to the 
State the sum of three hundred dollars, and to the county and 
city together, three hundred dollars more each, making the 
sum of $600, and the tax upon all aggregating the sum of 
$6000 ; half of this goes into the coffers of the State govern- 
ment, one-fourth, or $1500, to the county, and when the busi- 
ness is carried on in incorporated cities, the remaining fourth 

and of how much I regret that I have to differ from you in your opinion on 
this question." 

Dr. B. H. Carroll of Waco, Texas, in his celebrated sermon in reply to 
U. S. Senator Coke's speech in opposition to prohibitory laws has the fol- 
lowing to say: 

"But to return to the first point. Constitutions are not political plat- 
forms — voting for the local option clause in the Constitution does not stop 
us from taking position against it in our county. Granted. But should it 
stop you from denouncing it as anti-Democratic. Our position is just this, 
as repeatedly expressed. There is no necessity for the Democratic party to 
put in its platform a plank pro or con on this subject. Just relegate it to 
the people as a side issue. Then there will be no split in the party here in 
Texas. 

Let men vote as they please on this subject and quit cracking the party 
whip. Allow ministars of God to preach against what they regard as a 
great moral evil without calling upon the people to "scourge them back and 
stop their rations." The Senator proceeds to ridicule the idea that Prohi- 
bition proposes to step only the sale of whisky. 

To our minds there is no just ground for ridicule here. The law does not 
seek to prevent men from injuring themselves, provided they do not thereby 
injure society. The distinction is obvious : Sic utere tuo lit alienuni 
71071 laedas, (so use your own as not to injure another,) is a proverb appli- 
cable to both Common and Divine law. 

Prohibition is a war against the business of selling liquor; against the 
saloon as a public educator of the young, against a licensed wrong 
operating under the sanction of law. But he objects that this is "class leg- 
islation, in favor of the rich, and against the poor, in that a rich man can 
send off and get his whisky, while a poor man must take a drink out of the 
Brazos. ' ' 

Without classing this as demagogism, let us put the shoe on the other 



154 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

contributes to the municipal government. If there is no such 
incorporation, the last named amount remains in the tills of 
the whisky sellers. Now, I am not going to take time to dig 
up statistics gathered from the records of the different courts 
of the county and city, (if there be one), to show the large 
amount of money that is annually paid out and worse than 
wasted in the prosecution and punishment of crime and mis- 
demeanors, traceable directly to the infamous traffic in 
liquors. It is wholly unnecessary to do so, as the appalling 
fact stands out in bold relief before the experience and obser- 
vation of every intelligent reader, that the amount realized 
from the licenses will scarcely be a drop in the bucket com- 
pared with the necessary expenditure in keeping open the 

toot. What about high license as class legislation ? It would only take a 
small sum to send off for a gallon of whisky, but where is the poor man's 
chance to engage in this good business of selling liquor ? How many ol 
them have the $500 necessary to make them equal before the law ? But the 
Senator at last comes to the true position for an anti-Prohibitionist. He 
plants himself on it squarely. If he sustains himself here, there was no need 
to introduce [any other argument. Hear him: "The greatest people that 
have ever lived have had the strongest whisky. When the Romans overran 
Great Britain, the early Britons had only a drink made of honey and water; 
hence they were easily conquered. But since they have consumed more ardent 
spirits in England than any other country, you see they control the finances 
of the world, and theirs is the greatest maritime power in the world. We have 
descended from those people, but we have improved in drinking whisky, but 
we sell some of the best that ever was put in a man's face." There we have 
it at last. I give you his exact words. Here we have the reason why 
Persia, Greece, Rome, and Switzerland conquered while they were ab- 
stemious and temperate, and the secret of their downfall when they 
became civilized wine-bibers and liquor guzzlers. Shades of Sallust 
and Juvenal ! Here we have the secret of Moslem conquest, their 
superiority in art, science, and literature, while they obeyed their 
prophet and drank no wine, and the secret of their downfall when they 
lapsed from original simplicity and temperance. Here is an explanation — 
why ours is no maritime power. Oh. — Roach, — Roach, persecuted mar- 
tyr ! — why didn't you razee Secretary Whitney by showing that it was a 
lack of strong whisky that kept that ship from going faster ? Why didn't 
you employ our senator to show that it was the temperance society that 
ruined our navy ? O, lapsing civilization that now refuses to issue daily 
rations of grog to soldiers and sailors, thus destroying their martial spirits 
and undermining their fighting powers. 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 155 

courts the increased length of time for the punishment of such 
offenses. 

In this estimate we do not, indeed we can not, include the 
vast sums of money squandered and wasted by the unfortu- 
nate victims of the curse and which are not only lost to them, 
but to their dependent and impoverished families and to their 
bona fide creditors. How many helpless, miserable families 
have suffered for bread and for clothing; how many have 
been cast hopelessly adrift upon the charities of the world by 
the demoralizing influence of these gaping portals of destruc- 
tion ? How many merchants and business men have been 
left in the lurch by the same hellish influence and forced to 
levy a tax on other customers in the way of an increased per 
cent on the average selling price of their goods, wares and 
merchandise to make up for the amount squandered by their 
drinking and drunken customers ? Attempt to count up the 
necessary loss annually sustained by our law-abiding people, 
leaving out the miserable drunkards and the pitiful sum paid 
to the State, county and city, will pale into utter insignifi- 
cance. Besides this, a loss in the way of domestic happiness, 
the peace and quietude of society, the innocent, priceless 
blood of unoffending citizens sacrificed upon the altar of this 
insatiate demon, reaches out far beyond the circumscribed 
limits of human calculation. No system of arithmetical com- 
putation has yet been invented and giveu to the world, with 
which to measure the depth of human woe, or to suggest to 
the mind the faintest idea of just and adequate compensation 
for the bitter tears and voiceless heartaches that whisky pro- 
duces. They can not be estimated in dollars, though piled 
up into golden pyramids until their glistening spires reach 
the blue vaults of the starry heavens. Oh, no, you can not 
wipe away the bitter tears of the disconsolate widow, or charm 
away the corroding sorrows of her stricken heart, by the 
magic powers and enchantment of the "vile dust of this world's 



156 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

wealth and grandeur." Neither can you, with all the dazzling 
and costly things of earth, dry up the fountains of the 
mother's grief whose young, thoughtless and misguided boy, 
dearer to her than the "apple of her eye," yea, than her own 
life, has been allured by the temptations thrown around him 
by these deadly and villainous dens, into a life of shame and 
disgrace. Do you think you can ? If so, go seek out one 
from the scores and hundreds who may be found in every 
nook and corner of this "wide, wicked world," and learn how 
much of the glittering wealth of the globe will lift from her 
broken and bruised heart the pent-up sorrows that are crush- 
ing her down to earth ? From her you will learn how false 
the word of England's profligate poet, "But pomp and power 
alone are woman's care." You will learn from her grief the 
vain emptiness of this world's possessions when compared 
with a mother's love. It is useless to say more in refutation 
of this mercenary argument against prohibition which is en- 
tirely sufficient to convince a large class of our people of its 
inexpediency. 

The other objection, that it throws so many persons and so 
much capital out of employment may be answered by the 
following practical illustration : Some years ago there was 
a man living in a certain quarter of the county of Kaufman 
in this State, which was well adapted to the very lucrative 
business of hog-stealing, in which pursuit this enterprising 
man was largely interested. He had about all that he pos- 
sessed invested in the business and gave regular employment 
to several thriftless individuals who were not fit for anything 
else. 

He had succeeded well in evading the clutches of the law, 
and had attained sufficient respectability and standing among 
his neighbers to be called colonel. That my readers may not 
know to whom I refer, I will call him for, for short, Col. Swine- 
stealer. His hospitality was without bounds, and there is no 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 157 

question of the fact that he relieved many hundreds of vaga- 
bonds on the meat he had stolen — the legitimate profits of 
his business. I will not do the courts and the people of that 
county the injustice to intimate that they were influenced not 
to prosecute the Colonel by a consideration of the fact that 
he would be broken up in business, that his capital would lie 
idle, and that his worthless and villainous hirelings would 
thereby be deprived of access to the flesh-pots of the Colonel. 
This illustration, will, I think, suffice to show the absurdity of 
the objection to which it relates. I do not, of course, intend 
to class those who are engaged in the sale of liquor under a 
license from the State with hog-thieves. * Many of them are 
not only generous and kind in their natures, but are scrupu- 
lously honest in their dealings. They would be as far from 
stealing a hog, or anything else, as the best citizen to be found 
in the community, but the business they follow is more des- 
tructive and damaging to society than the hog-stealing occu- 
pation. 

It is objected by some of the anti-prohibitionists, after vig- 
orously opposing prohibitory laws because subversive of per- 
sonal liberty and contrary to the spirit of our Constitution 
and of the government, that the amendment is not strong 
enough, and that it is totally defective in not prohibiting the 
importation of spirituous liquors into the State. They claim 
to be better prohibitionists than those who favor the adoption 
of the amendment, because Jhey want a much stronger docu- 
ment, one that will absolutely prohibit the introduction ofthe 
article into the State under any circumstances whatever. 
These are the prohibitionists of the "straightest sect." It is 
rather surprising, however, that we have never heard of them 
before. Why was it that they did not speak out about the 
time the senator from Gaudaloupe was heard from on the sub- 
ject? Why did they not urge this objection at the proper 
time? They, with all others, have had their day in court, and 



158 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

it is now too late to object to the form or effect of the judg- 
ment. But, aside from this, I desire to show that the objec- 
tion is wholly without foundation. All who are posted upon 
the State and Federal Constitution understand well enough 
that the power to regulate commerce between the United 
States and foreign countries and between the states is exclu- 
sively given to Congress,* and any attempt on the part of the 
states to usurp this authority would be unconstitutional and 
void; and had such a restrictive provision against importation 
been embodied in the amendment, it is quite probable that it 
would have vitiated all of the legislation passed under its 
authority. However, it is not necessary to discuss that prop- 
osition at this time. 

One thing we may be assured of from experience and ob- 
servation, and that is that it would be tested by the whisky 
dealers as soon as an attempt should be made to enforce it. 
The question was virtually decided in the License cases by 
the Supreme Court of the United States in 1847. (5 Howard., 
505). The appellants in those cases insisted that a State or 
local prohibitory law was obnoxious to that provision of the 
Federal Constitution which gives to Congress the right to 
regulate commerce, as its effect was to prevent the importa- 
tion of the prohibited articles into the State or districts ad- 
opting such laws. The court held that such laws were in the 
nature of police regulations and within the scope of the 
power reserved by the States an<3 while their effect necessa- 
rily interfered with the business of the importers of such 
liquors, they in no way affected their right under the Con- 
stitution and laws of Congress to import such articles if they 
were disposed to do so. The right to sell them after impor- 
tation was another and a different thing, and a matter within 
the control of the States. By an examination of those cases. 

*Con. U. S., Art. 1, Sec. 8. 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 159 

it will be seen that the court clearly and unmistakably recog- 
nized the want of authority in the States to prohibit the im- 
portation while they had the power to regulate, restrict, or 
entirely prohibit the sale of such articles after they are im- 
ported. In a recent case decided by the Supreme Court of 
the United States, involving the constitutionality of the drum- 
mers' tax, the principle was reaffirmed and the tax decided 
unconstitutional, because it was an invasion of the exclusive 
right of Congress to regulate commerce. The case has not 
yet been reported except through the newspapers and law 
journals, and hence I am unable to cite it that it may be 
easily referred to by those who may desire to pursue the in- 
vestigation further. 

If, as was held in that case, the States can pass no law im- 
posing a tax upon persons engaged in selling goods, wares 
and merchandioe to be imported into them from other States 
of the Union, it necessarily follows that they can not pass 
laws absolutely prohibiting such importation. If they were 
permitted to enforce a law prohibiting the importation of 
spirituous or intoxicating liquors because their introduction 
is alleged to be destructive to the moral, social, or material 
welfare of their people, they could likewise inhibit the im- 
portation of any other article by declaring it in some way 
detrimental to the interests of their people, and in that way 
they could shut out all commerce from the other States and 
all other countries, thereby severing all of their commercial 
relations, regardless of the Federal Constitution and the regu- 
lations of Congress under its authority. It is unnecessary to 
elaborate the proposition. 

Not long since a very prominent and promising young poli- 
tician of Texas,* published an open letter accepting an invi- 

*Hon. Horace Chilton, of Tyler, late Assistant Attorney-General of 
Texas. Hon. Seth Shephard, of Dallas, makes substantially the same ob- 
jections in his open letter on the same subject. 



l6o PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

tation to join the anti-prohibition "pow-wow" at Dallas, in 
which he urges some objections to the adoption of the con- 
stitutional amendment, to which my attention had not been 
directed until the chapter on State prohibition had been, as I 
thought, completed. Proposing as I did in the outset to dis- 
cuss the subject in all its phases, I can not pass unnoticed 
the objections urged by this distinguished young statesman 
whose prominence in the eastern part of Texas is such 
as to give much force to the position he so boldly and con- 
fidently assumes, in the estimation especially of the 
people of that portion of the State, when he is so favor- 
ably known. It is first insisted that the last Legislature in 
the enactment of a stringent law requiring heavy bond and 
prescribing increased penalties for violations of the law 
against illegal sales, with the removal of screens, pictures, 
music and games of chance, went as far as the urgent neces- 
sity for the further regulation and restriction of the liquor 
traffic demands at the present stage of our social advance- 
ment. That the better policy is, to make haste slowly in the 
effort to suppress this universally recognized evil. That the 
adoption of the proposed constitutional amendment striking 
down the traffic at one decisive blow would be a radical in- 
novation upon the present order of things that might prove 
disastrous in its results, particularly to some interests and to 
certain classes of our people, who would justly regard it as 
tyrannical and oppressive. The usual appeal is made to time- 
honored principles and the customs of our fathers as a criter- 
ion by which we should be governed in the important crisis 
which is now upon us. It is objected that if the amendment 
is carried, " a man can not make his own wine from his own 
grapes for his own table;" therefore it ought not to be adop- 
ted. In answer to that objection, we will admit that it would 
be a great hardship upon all of the wine-makers in Texas, and 
that they would in all their after-years weep over the loss of 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. l6l 

that privilege, and, like Rachel of old, "refuse to be com- 
forted" because of their dire misfortune and bereavement; 
and we may admit further, that a few of them would dig up 
their vines and transplant them into the soil of a neighboring 
State where there has been no attempted interference with 
such privileges. I do not think the State would hereby suffer 
any material damage or detriment. Say she should loose 
every manufacturer of wine " for his own use " or other pur- 
poses, the loss would hardly be perceptible if it should be felt 
at all. On the other hand, the benefits resulting from the 
law would be seen and felt in every nook and corner of the 
State in more ways that one — in ways that I can not under- 
take to point out and describe. Is the State, then, to neglect 
all classes of her people for no other purpose than to secure to 
an insignificant number of persons the small privilege of 
" making wine for their own use out of their own grapes for 
their own table ?" I follow this flimsy objection no further. 
The second objection is, that we must not interfere with the 
Germans and their lager. 

While Texas has opened her doors to immigration from all 
quarters of the globe, and sent out far-reaching and cordial 
invitations to all sober, honest, industrious and self-support- 
ing persons to come and make for themselves happy and com- 
fortable homes upon her broad and fertile prairies, she has 
never guaranteed to them exemption from any law, either or- 
ganic or statutory, which her people may in their wisdom, see 
proper to enact, having in view the promotion of the public 
good." She has not guaranteed that the laws and customs of 
any other state or country shall be specially respected, or 
stand in the way of the adoption of any policy which may 
seem to the majority consistent with, or conducive to 
the welfare of the whole people. While I respect our 
German citizens, who are honorable and worthy of res- 
pect, as highly as any other man, I do not hesitate to suggest 



162 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

to them and to all others who aie unwilling to submit to the 
will of the majority and to our laws generally, and govern 
themselves accordingly, that they are at perfect liberty to go 
somewhere else. The people of Texas cannot afford to let such 
considerations as these stand in the way of their moral, social 
or material advancement for the sake of a class of persons 
who threaten to defy the law and override the majority. The 
will of the majority must be allowed to prevail, else we have, 
no such thing as Democracy. "The greatest good to the 
greatest number," although some hardship results, is the only 
true criterion by which we can be governed. To save the mi- 
nority we can not afford to destroy the majority. The idea 
that "fifty-five per cent of our people ought never to assume 
to make that a crime which the other forty-five per cent es- 
teem as among their rights," is novel indeed. If fifty-five per 
cent of the people ought not to prevail in the enactment of 
any penal law, then I would like to know exactly what per 
cent of the people constitutes a large majority, or a quorum 
to do business in the name of the whole people? Suppose 
that in a newly settled state forty-five per cent of the people 
"esteem it one of their dearest rights" to carry "pistols, com- 
mit assaults, destroy property, steal hogs, or to do anything 
else inconsistent with the personal safety, and subversive of 
the dearest rights of their neighbors; according to this new- 
fangled logic and latter-day statesmanship, nothing could be 
done in the premises. The absurdity is apparent. 

But it is^urged that the amendment ought not to go so far 
as to make it obligatory upon the legislature to pass laws ab- 
solutely prohibiting the traffic. That if any amendment had 
been submitted at all, it should leave the matter optional with 
the legislature to prohibit or not to prohibit, to restrict or not 
restrict, as may from time to time appear to be to the best in- 
terests of the people at large. We are not called upon to de- 
cide any such question. The legislature after, as I suppose, a 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 1 63 

thorough consideration of the subject in all of its phases, de- 
cided to submit the amendment in the form in which we are 
authorized and required to act upon the question, and it is 
useless for us now to find fault with it, or attempt to remedy 
its apparently objectionable features. The question is, which 
shall we have, saloons, or no saloons? whisky, or no whisky? 
license, drunkenness and disorder, or prohibition, sobriety 
and general domestic peace and social tranquiliy? 

I shall not burden my readers with what I conceive to be a 
fruitless and worse than useless discussion in order to answer 
an objection, though apparently seriously urged by a most 
prominent young Democrat, who has held high official posi- 
tion, whose name has been favorably mentioned in connec- 
tion with Congressional honors, and who by some has been 
thought good material for the United States Senate. When 
such an amendment as is suggested in the open letter referred 
to is in good faith submitted to the consideration of the people 
of Texas, if I am living, I may have something to say upon 
its merits, and it is quite probable that I would favor it, if 
"the best that could be done under the circumstances." 

Until then I prefer to be silent and non-commital. My 
impression now is, that the policy of the State will be settled 
by the adoption of the amendment as proposed in a manner 
that will entirely supersede the necessity of the submission of 
the optional amendment preferred by the honorable gentle- 
man whose recently published open letter suggested to the 
author the propriety of making this addition to the chapter 
after it had gone into the hands of the printer. 



164 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER IX. 

REVIEW OF THE ANTI-PROHIBITION PLATFORM. 



Without extensive preliminary observations giving the rea- 
sons prompting me to supplement what has already been said 
on the subject of State prohibition as contemplated in the 
amendment, soon to be voted upon by the people of Texas, I 
propose to discuss seriatim every proposition set forth in the 
platform or declaration of principles of the anti-prohibition, 
or " True Blue " convention held in the city of Dallas, Texas, 
on the 4th day of May, 1887, as unanimously adopted by that 
august body representing the intelligence of the opposition 
in the State. 

"1. We oppose the pending prohibition amendment be- 
cause it is a proposition to change our form of government 
from a free republic of sovereign and independent citizens to a 
species of paternalism hateful to our people. It will take 
from the citizen his most sacred and inalienable rights and 
add to and augment the powers of government, and is there- 
fore undemocratic and anti-republican." 

" Because it (State prohibition), is a proposition to change 
our form of government from a free republic of sovereign and 
independent citizens to a species of paternalism hateful to our 
people." I would like to know exactly what is meant by the 
expression " to change our form of government." If it is 
meant that a majority of any State or community have no 
right to change the form of their government when it ceases 
to protect those for whom and by whom it was established, I 
respectfully refer to the first article in the Declaration 
of Independence, the charter of American liberty and of our 
free institutions. The contrary doctrine is there laid down 
as plainly as the language of patriotism can express it. In 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 1 65 

what respect does the adoption of the proposed constitutional 
amendment tend to change our form of government? If 
I have studied our form of government to any purpose at all, 
I have learned that its present form is democratic, and that 
means that the majority shall rule in all matters in any way 
affecting the public welfare. In the organization of our State 
and Federal governments, a majority of the people were ex- 
pressly given the right to amend the organic law when 
deemed advisable. Does the legitimate exercise of that 
power tend to change the form of government " from a free 
republic, etc. ?" A few years ago slavery was protected 
by the Constitution, both State and Federal. We of the 
South thought that it was right ; but it is not necessary to 
consider that question in this argument. A great many 
people of the Union thought differently, and an amendment 
destroying slavery was engrafted upon the U. S. Conbtitution > 
and forced upon the people ot the Southern States. If that 
act did not change the form of our government, then I am at a 
loss to know how it can be done by the voluntary adoption of 
the prohibitory amendment now submitted to the considera- 
tion of our people. 

Gur Constitution has often been changed in important par- 
ticulars, and in no instance, so far as I know, has a change 
been made without interfering with somebody's supposed in- 
alienable rights and pecuniary interests. Under the Con- 
stitution of 1869, the passage of usury laws was in no way 
enjoined upon the Legislature, and the bankers and money- 
lenders all over the State loaned their mon^y at the enormous 
rate of 5 per cent a month. A slight change was, (unfortuna- 
tely for the bankers, who clamored for personal liberty to 
make their own contracts), made in the Constitution of 1875, 
which prescribes 12 per cent per annum as the highest rate 
of interest a man may legally charge for his money. If this 
is not "a species ot paternalism hateful" to some of our 



1 66 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

people, then I am at a loss to understand the meaning of the 
word. I can not see that the form of our government can be 
greatly changed in that particular. 

"We oppose this amendment because it is sumptuary and 
will vex the citizens and interfere with individual liberty." 

This objection has been fully answered in another place, 

"We oppose this amendment because it is at war with the 
fundamental principles of Anglo-Saxon civilization, and will 
destroy that inalienable right of the citizen to determine for 
himself by what method he shall pursue his own happiness 
without interference with the rights of others, which principle 
is the basis of our liberties and the sole hope of the perpetu- 
ity of our institutions." 

"At war with the fundamental principles of Anglo-Saxon 
civilization"; that is the idea, and by it is meant, I suppose, 
that Anglo-Saxon civilization is opposed to all moral, social, 
and material progress. If so, then we will try some other 
stamp of civilization. If the Anglo-Saxon "brand" is to be 
supplied by the great whisky monopolies and beer-dealers' 
associations of this country, and is to be "rectified" through 
the refining influence of saloons and low doggeries, then it is 
certainly high time we were trying another "civilization" 
market. The "inalienable rights of the citizen to determine 
for himself by what method he shall pursue his own happi- 
ness, etc", has already been discussed in the main chapter, 
(ante page ). By "the perpetuity of our institutions" is 
doubtless, meant the perpetuation of our saloons and our 
places of business and amusement, and specially refers to the 
vested rights and personal proclivities of the members who 
composed the Convention. 

4. W T e oppose the amendment because its inforcement will 
entail upon the government the necessity of promoting a sys- 
tem of spies and informers detestable to our people, and the 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 167 

achievement of extreme legislation of doubtful constitution- 
ality, and under the sanction of which our homes may be 
searched, our property seized and our dearest rights invaded. 
Texas cannot hope to escape these curses which have invari- 
ably attended similar experience in other states. 

That "it will entail upon the government the necessity of 
promoting a system of spies and informers detestable to our 
people, and the enactment of legislation of doubtful constitu- 
tionality," is only the hap-hazard opinion of the members 
of the convention, or rather the committee that re- 
ported the resolutions. That matter is yet to be tried. 
Besides, honest men do not object to being watched, and 
those of our citizens who do not propose to manufacture and 
sell whisky contrary to law can very well stand the "spies and 
informers/' they can very easily protect themselves from this 
hateful class by transforming themselves into honest law-abid- 
ing citizens. There need be no fears of unconstitutional 
measures to carry out the objects and purposes of the amend- 
ment. Such measures have already been tested time and 
again by the highest courts of the country, both Federal and 
State, and their constitutionality invariably recognized and 
upheld by those courts. 

5. Its adoption will suppress the general use of milder 
stimulants and encourage the use of the strongest drinks and 
thus retard the advancement of genuine temperance. It will 
stamp as criminal the manufacture of wines from our domestic 
grapes for family purposes and will degrade drug stores into 
«dram-shops and elevate our doctors into autocrats over our 
appetites. 

It may have "a tendency to suppress the use of the milder 
stimulants," but I am unable to see how it can possibly "en- 
courage the use of stronger drinks, and retard "the advance- 
ment of genuine temperance." If it will only do this, the 
liquor dealers ought to favor its adoption. In answer to the 



1 68 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

destruction of grape-culture, I refer to the closing. paragraph 
of the last chapter. (Ante page.) 

6. It will enable the rich to import and use their liquors 
without taxation or restraint, and will prohibit only those of 
our people who are too poor to buy their liquors in unbroken 
packages, and under its operation the saloon will give place 
to the guilded club room for the rich, while the poor will be 
forced to make their purchases at low dives and in violation 
of law. Such a class of legislation is odious to our people 
and contrary to free government. 

If the first part of the above proposition is correct, and it 
is absolutely necessary for our people to have whisky, it will 
certainly have a tendency to make all the poor drunkards of 
the State strive to get rich so they can import liquors in un- 
broken packages. When they get able to do this, they can 
take care of their families; pay all of their old whisky bills 
as well as other financial short-comings ; and if they get 
drunk and violate the law, they can contribute something to 
the coffers of the State and their counties ; or to the decent 
support of the lawyers who may be employed to keep them 
out of more serious trouble. 

7. It proposes by the preponderance of a majority in cer- 
tain sections of the State to fasten by force on other sections 
a theory of moral and social conduct and habit distasteful 
and repugnant to the latter. The varied interests of these 
sections in our State have been a prolific source of care and 
thought in our statesmanship, and if this amendment is adop- 
ted it will engender a hostile sentiment in localities fatal to 
its enforcemet. Thus we get a disreputable law and a disre- 
gard of constitutional authority, and will produce a lasting 
and permanent evil to ourg people and tend to disrupt the 
State. 

If the amended is adopted, as it certainly will be, the legis- 
lature will, at its next session thereafter, pass laws similar to 
others upon the statute books prescribing penalties for their 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 169 

violation. These laws will be administered by the courts and 
juries of the different sections of the State, and enforced by 
the officers precisely like other laws are enforced, and if a man 
does not wish to be forced to comply with their provisions, he 
can do so voluntarily. If he is determined to be forced to 
comply, he can make a trial of his strength in a contest with 
the State government in its effort to carry into execution the 
provisions of the law. If a whisky, or beer dealer finds him- 
self unable to live under the new dispensation, he can sellout 
and leave the State, and no objection whatever will be raised. 
No writ of ne exiat will be resorted to for the purpose of pre- 
venting his speedy removal. 

8 " It proposes to confiscate and destroy without compen- 
sation large property interests of our people. It will unsettle 
business and impair property values, paralyze, for a period at 
least, the commercial interests of our State, and destroy great 
industries already in operation for the manufacturing of the 
milder stimulants. It will abolish the source of public rev- 
enue fully one-third, and increase to a corresponding amount 
the burdens upon our lands and the necessariesof life, already 
overburdened with the exactions of government. 

It has always been regarded as within the province oflegis- 
lation to provide for the abatement of nuisances without re- 
gard to the property rights of persons attempting to maintain 
such nuisances, in defiance of the protest of the people af- 
fected or damaged thereby. Besides, the proposed amend- 
ment makes no such intimation, and it is certainly to be pre- 
sumed that the legislature will have wisdom and virtue enough 
to provide for the enforcement of the law without the neces- 
sity of resorting to so harsh a measure as that of confiscation. 
"It will abolish the source of our public revenue." What is 
the source of our public revenue? Is it the saloons? If it can 
be shown that the saloon is the source of our revenue, or any- 
thing else than vice, personal, social and moral degradation, 



170 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 



disorder and depravity, then I will concede that the amend- 
ment ought not to be adopted. The saloons a source of rev- 
enue ! What a glaring absurdity! It is in deed and in fact 
the very canker-worm of the public revenue, which eats into 
and destroys the germs of material prosperity, the only true 
and living source of public revenue. That congressmen and 
reputed statesmen should attempt to palm off such an absurd- 
ity upon an intelligent people is truly surprising. 

9. The zealous advocates of the prohibition idea have 
already established and organized a third political party, and 
have waged relentless warfare upon the principles and organ- 
ization of other established parties. Instigated by foreign 
emissaries, they have by agitation for years secured 
from the Legislature of our State the concession of this pro- 
position to change our organic law, and by studied purpose 
and concerted movement, they now seek to stiffle political ex- 
pression from our people, until their own political designs are 
fully accomplished. We warn our people of this threatened 
danger and call upon them to rebuke at the polls this sinister 
conspiracy against their political organization and funda- 
mental principles of American liberty. 

What are you anti-prohibitionists doing in the way of or- 
ganizing third parties ? The Democratic party of Texas 
in convention assembled no longer ago than last August, de- 
cided that a man's views upon the subject]now being consid- 
ered should not interfere with his good-standing in the party. 
While there were a few overzealous prohibitionists, who were 
dissatisfied because the convention did not think best to 
go further at that time, split off from the party and undertook 
to revolutionize the politics of the State in a few days. The 
great mass of the prohibitionists of Texas adhered to the old 
party and carried the State by an overwhelming majority. 
Had it been announced in the platform of the Galveston con- 
vention that the prohibition democrats would have to sur- 
render their views upon that subject or abandon the Demo- 



PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION. 171 

cratic party, the new party would have been much stronger 
than it was. However that may be, it was certainly estab- 
lished in the convention that a man may be a Simon-pure 
Democrat and a good prohibitionist. Acting upon that view, 
the prohibitionists have done nothing more than assert their 
right and intention to vote and work for the adoption of the 
amendment. They have not questioned the wisdom and 
patriotism of the recognized exponents of the Democratic 
party in the last State convention in the course they pur- 
sued in dealing with this important question of State 
policy. They have not so far as I have been able to learn, 
attempted to override the action of the convention by 
alligning the party organization on their side of the question. 
They have not attempted or threatened to read any one out 
of the ranks of the party, because he opposes the amendment. 
While they have invited everybody regardless of party affilia- 
tions to join in the effort to " squelsh " the liquor traffic, they 
have not assumed to be the only " true blue " Jeffersonian 
Democrats in the State. Nor have they as the Simon-pure 
Democrats invited and received into the fold of the party of 
constitutional liberty a motley host of recruits who never 
voted a Democratic ticket in their lives, and who never felt a 
Democratic impulse since they were ushered into existence. 
It is truly humiliating to a true disciple of Jefferson to behold 
these pot-gutted, hypocritical, pretended apostates of Re- 
publicanism going about with " true blue " Democratic (?) 
badges pinned to the lapels of their coats hurraing for Jef- 
ferson and. Roger Q. Mills. " O temfiora, o mores /" If the 
immortal Jefferson could rise from the dead and behold these 
" True Blue " disciples who are casting out prohibition 
devils in his name, he would not only say, " Depart, ye 
cursed, etc., I never knew you," but, like the author of those 
memorable words to the money-changers in the temple, he 
would walk in and say, " My house shall be a house of 



172 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves/' (politically 
speaking, of course.)* 

The word, thieves, is used because the quotation puts it 
that way, and I can not substitute another, and not because 
all of the "True Blues" are really and in fact thieves, al- 
though a large per cent of them are life-long Republicans. 



*Since the above was written, Gov. Ross has published an open letter, in 
which he makes known his intention to vote against the amendment. The 
first reason he gives is, that our fathers in establishing our present system 
of government were infallible, and, as they did not see proper in that day 
to provide against the liquor traffic, it must be wrong in principle. The 
argument of his Excellency would lead us to question the wisdom of every 
constitutional amendment or statutory enactment which has been engrafted 
upon our jurisprudence since the adoption of the first Constitution in 1845. 
He speaks of the vast improvements that have taken place, with the un- 
precedented increase of population (the 20,000 then and the 3,000,000 
now): of the schools, colleges and churches, which have sprung up all over 
the country with their civilizing, refining, and christianizing influences. 
The inference to be drawn is, tha*" the people at large have nothing what- 
ever to complain of and to make them unhappy. In other words, that the 
social condition of the State is perfect and, therefore, could not be im- 
proved by the prohibition of the liquor traffic and the suppression of sa- 
loons. He speaks of the "abuses" of the traffic, which of course presup- 
poses that it is a good thing in its place. He compares our condition with 
that of Maine, and assumes, without giving statistics, among other things, 
that we have fewer criminals in proportion to population than that State 
where prohibition has been the policy for nearly forty years. The Gov- 
ernor finds nothing in the Bible discouraging drunkenness, but intimates- 
that that infallible book rather endorses the views entertained by its Anti- 
prohibition expounders. His Excellency, I fear, has not been a regular 
attendant of the Sunday Schools nor a very close and critical reader of his 
Bible; otherwise he must have long since arrived at a different conclusion as. 
to its teachings. ( See chapter XII) . 



CHAPTER X. 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 

GENERAL DISCUSSION— U. S. SENATOR BLAIR'S SPEECH. 



This effort would not be complete without a chapter de- 
voted to the subject of National Prohibition, although it has 
not yet assumed an attitude which addresses itself to the prac- 
tical consideration of the people for whose benefit the meas- 
ure is intended. There has for some time been pending be- 
fore Congress the following resolution, proposing an amend- 
ment to the Federal Constitution similar in its objects and ef- 
fect to the measure now being submitted to the people of 
Texas, except that it is designed to be general in its opera- 
tion, taking in all of the states and territories of the United 
States: 

"Resolved by the House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each 
house concurring therein), That the following Amendment to 
the Constitution be, and hereby is, proposed to the states to 
become valid when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths 
of the several states, as provided in the Constitution: 

ARTICLE. 

"Section I. From and after the year of our Lord 1900 the 
manufacture and sale of distilled alcoholic intoxicating 
liquors, or alcoholic liquors any part of which is obtained by 
distillation or process equivalent thereto, or any intoxicating 
liquors mixed or adulteratey with ardent spirits, or with any 

(i73) 



174 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

poison whatever, except for medicinal, mechanical, chemical 
and scientific purposes, and for use in the arts, anywhere with- 
in the United States and the territories thereof, shall cease; 
and the importation of such liquors from foreign states and 
countries to the United States and territories, and the expor- 
tation of such liquors from and the transportation thereof 
within and through any part of this country, except for the use 
and purposes aforesaid, shall be, and hereby is, forever here- 
after prohibited. 

"Section II. Nothing in this article shall be construed to* 
waive or abridge any existing power of Congress, nor the 
right, which is hereby recognized, of the people of any state 
or territory to enact laws to prevent the increase and for the 
suppression or regulation of the manufacture, sale, and use of 
liquors, and the ingredients thereof, any part of which is al- 
coholic, intoxicating, or poisonous, within its own limits, and 
for the exclusion of such liquors and ingredients therefrom at 
any time, as well before as after the close of the year of our 
Lord 1900; but until then, and until ten years after the ratifi- 
cation thereof, as provided in the next section, no state or ter- 
ritory shall interfere with the transportation of said liquors or 
ingredients, in packages safely secured, over the usual lines 
of traffic to other states and territories, wherein the manu- 
facture, sale, and use thereof for other purposes and use than 
those excepted in the first section shall be lawful: provided, 
That the true destination of such packages be truly marked 
thereon. 

"Section III. Should this article not be ratified by three- 
fourths of the states on or before the last day of December, 
1890, then the first section thereof shall take effect and be in 
force at the expiration of ten years from such ratification; and 
the assent of any state to this article shall not be rescinded 
nor reversed. 

"Section IV. Congress shall enforce this article by all 
needful legislation. 

It may be expected that all who may favor State prohibi- 
tion upon principle or expediency or both would, in order to 
be a consistent "dyed in the wool" prohibitionist, certainly 
favor the proposed amendment of the Federal Constitution 
on the ground that if it is good for the people of each State 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. I 75 

seperately that it would be good for them all in a bulk. In 
other words, that the more of a good thing we can have, the 
better for the people. That the amendment would work well 
in the utter destruction of the accursed liquor traffic through- 
out the length and breadth of the Union, there is no reason 
to doubt. In some respects I believe that it would be more 
efficient and satisfactory than State prohibition. It would 
prevent the serious trouble and difficulty which exist along 
the borders where it is almost impossible to enforce the pro- 
visions and penalties of the State law. Large towns and cities 
situated near the lines of anti-prohibition States must neces- 
sarily experience all but insuperable difficulties in keeping 
out interlopers and professional smugglers, but it is acknowl- 
edged that, while such is the case, prohibitory laws do much 
good in the border towns and cities. But while, perhaps, 
National, or rather Federal prohibition would be more effi- 
cient in such cases and perhaps more rapidly and completely 
destroy the evil than would State prohibition even in the same 
State where called into operation there is a different principle 
underlying the two measures or propositions. In another 
chapter I endeavored to draw the distinction between the 
respective powers, duties, and objects of the State and Fede- 
ral governments and the different rules of construction as 
applied to the two constitutions. It is unnecessary to go over 
what was there said. It must clearly appear to every one 
who has had occasion to study the genius of our peculiar sys- 
tem of government, which is representatives rather than 
strictly democratic in its character, that all the power Con- 
gress is constitutionally permitted to exercise is expressly 
delegated to it by the States and by the people. Ever since 
the adoption of the constitution and the organization of the 
Federal government there have been two parties irreconcila- 
bly divided upon the great question which has been the chief 
bone of political contention and strife in all human govern- 



176 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

ments, so far as I have been able to understand them. This 
difference of opinion and sentiment lies deeply imbedded in 
the natural conceptions of two different orders of mind and 
in the constitutional inwardness of the great masses of the 
people in ail ages of the world with reference to the idea of 
personal freedom. 

There is found to exist in every form of government a large 
class of the people who are submissive in their nature to the 
powers that be and while they are ever ready to take up arms 
in the defense of their rulers, they join and support them 
without questioning the right in every attempted usurpation 
upon their own liberties and those of the people at large. 
They are ever clamoring for increasing prerogatives and 
a stronger government without much regard to its tyrannical 
tendencies. In England this class of people are called 
Tories, and the same appellation was given to them in the 
earlier history of our own government. The other class, 
formerly called Whigs, but whose name has frequently been 
changed as occason or necessity demanded, have at all times 
opposed every attempted encroachment upon the recognized 
rights and liberties of the people by the sovereign authority 
under whatever guise it may assume. This restless, impatient, 
chafing under restraint is innate and incorrigible and it ever 
carries the torch with which revolutions are kindled in the 
overthrow of tyranny and oppression. These same opposing 
political forces are to-day battling with each other in the 
struggle for the mastery just as they have ever done in 
the past ages of our own history, and in the history of the 
world. They will continue to struggle till human govern- 
ments shall be no more upon the face of the earth. No 
power save that of an omnipotent Creator in the regenerating 
influence of his spirit, can reconcile those two opposing poli- 
tical forces to each other. They are as diametrically and 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. I 77 

uncompromisingly opposed to each other as are the cen- 
tripetal and centrifugal forces of the physical world. 
* Having laid this predicate, I will proceed to the argument 
and endeavor to apply the principles evolved from the fore- 
going apparent digression to the question before us for practi- 
cal consideration ; that of (i) the right of the general govern- 
ment to interfere with the internal affairs of the States, and 
(2) the expediency of such a measure. As substantially stated 
in the chapter on State prohibition, the idea of the inter- 
ference of the Federal government in matters exclusively 
pertaining to the internal affairs of the States, those pertain- 
ing especially to their police regulations never could have 
been contemplated for a moment by the framers of its consti- 
tution. Such an idea or purpose is in direct conflict with the 
democratic theory of government, and, although the adoption 
of the proposed amendment by the people of the several 
States, as provided by organic law. would set at rest every 
question of the constitutionality of Federal prohibition, it, 
would be a flagrant departure from the recognized principles 
underlying our dual system of government and would event- 
ually lead to irreconcilable conflicts of authority and juris- 
diction which would tend strongly towards the ultimate dis- 
ruption and overthrow of the government. 

It is best that the general government should be permitted 
to exercise no more power than is absolutely necessary for 
the accomplishment of the grand objects and beneficial pur- 
poses of its establishment. Otherwise, it becomes a trespasser 
upon the authority of the States who are ever jealous of their 
right to provide for the wants and necessities of their own 
household and ready to resent every attempted infringement 
upon this right by the general government. The results of 
such conflict of authority may be fatal to both. For these 
reasons I am not yet prepared to give my assent to the exer- 
cise of the authority assumed by the Federal government as 



178 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

contemplated by the proposed constitutional amendment. 
But while this is the case, and while I regard the exercise of 
such power by the general government over the people of the 
States as subversive of the objects for which it was created 
and contrary to the true genius and spirit of our American 
institutions, I am equally as firm in the opinion that State 
prohibition is in strict accord with the most ultra-democratic 
view of the true spirit and genius of our peculiar form of 
government. At the close of this chapter will be found the 
recent speech of Hon. H. W, Blair, the author of the proposed 
amendment before the United States Senate, in which will 
appear an able and exhaustive presentation of the merits of 
the resolution and of the opposite view of the powers and 
purposes of the Federal government. There are good men 
who would hail with delight the adoption of the proposed 
amendment, regardless of the principle involved, regardless 
of Democratic or Republican theories of government, and I 
am not disposed to quarrel with them on account of their 
views even if they should go so far as to say the necessity of 
effectually pulverizing the rum power is one of those neces- 
sities we read of in the book that "knows no law," that 
knows no party, that regards and follows no "time honored 
principle" or custom that stands in the way of the material 
welfare of the people for whom all governments are estab- 
lished and maintained. For myself, I would not destroy the 
constitution, I would not revolutionize our present admirable 
form of government for the purpose of engrafting upon the 
Federal Constitution an amendment, however grand and 
glorious in its purpose, that would interfere with the long- 
recognized right of the States to regulate their internal affairs; 
to make all laws which operate exclusively upon their own 
citizens, and in no way affect the interests or concerns of the 
general government. At least, I would not favor such an 
innovation until every other possible means was exhausted to 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. I 79 

accomplish the purpose. I am not at this time called upon 
to say what course I would take should I be forced to decide 
between revolution and whisky, and until that time shall come, 
which I hope will not be in my day, prudence demands that 
I should remain silent. 

Favoring the resolution providing for the submission of the 
proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, Mr. Blair 
made the following remarks upon the floor of the United 
States Senate: 

"In order to justify legislation of any kind restricting the 
manufacture and use of alcoholic liquors, I believe it to be 
necessary to maintain these propositions: 

" First. That it is the duty of society, through the agency 
of government, which is the creature of society, to enact and 
enforce all laws which, while protecting the individu al in 
the full possession and enjoyment of his inalienable rights, 
tend to promote the general welfare; and especially whenever 
that welfare is impaired or threatened by any existing or im- 
pending evil, it is the duty of society to enact and enforce 
laws to restrict or destroy that evil. It may be proper to ob- 
serve that no law can promote the general welfare which de- 
prives an individual of an inalienable right, when that right is 
properly denned, or which impairs the enjoyment thereof, 
whether of life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happines. 
But society has inalienable rights as well as individuals, and 
the right to such legislation as will promote the general wel- 
fare, in its true sens*e, is one of them; and the inalienable 
rights of individuals and the inalienable rights of society at 
large are limited by, and must be construed and enjoyed with 
reference to, each other. 

" Second. While society has no right to prevent or restrict 
the use of an article by individuals for purposes which are 
beneficial only, yet if that use, beneficial to some, is found by 
experience to be naturally and inevitably greatly injurious in 
its effects upon others and upon society in general, then it be- 
comes the duty of society, in the exercise of its inalienable 
right to promote the general welfare, and in self-defense to 
social life, just as the individual may defend his natural life, 



150 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

to prohibit, regulate, or restrict the use of that article, as the 
case may require. This principle is daily applied in laws 
which control the manufacture and use of gun-powder, nitro- 
glycerine, dynamite, and other things of great and dangerous 
potency, the unrestrained use of which, even for useful pur- 
poses, has been shown by experience to be destructive to the 
inalienable rights of others. This results from the common 
principle of law that every man must so enjoy his own rights 
as neither to destroy nor impair those of another, and it is the 
great end for which government is instituted among men to 
compel him so to do. 

"Third. No person has a right to do that to himself which 
impairs or perverts his own powers: and when he does so by 
means of that which society can reach and remove by law to 
such extent as to become a burden or a source of danger to 
others, either by his example or by his liability to commit acts 
•of crime, or to be essentially incapacitated to discharge his 
duties to himself, his family, and society, the law, that is, so- 
ciety, should protect both him and itself. A man has no more 
Tight to destroy his inalienable rights than those of another, 
or than another has to deprive him of his own. The laws 
restraining the spendthrift in the destruction of his inalienable 
right in property and punishing suicide (as the common law 
did, by forfeiture of estate, &c), or attempted self-murder (as 
the law does now), are familiar examples of the application 
of this principle. 

"These are elementary principles of law and of common 
sense. They are corner-stones of all just government. To 
these principles every member of society is held to have given 
his assent. They are unquestioned, so far as I know, by any 
•one who believes in any law. They are axiomatic and inde- 
structible as the social organization itself. 

"Fourth. The use (unless medicinally) of alcoholic liquors 
to the extent of intoxicating or poisoning — which, as will 
hereafter be seen, is the same thing as intoxication — is an in- 
jury to the individual; it inflicts great evils upon society at 
large; it is destructive to the general welfare; it is of a 
nature which may be greatly restricted if not destroyed by 
the enforcement of appropriate laws; consequently such laws 
should be enacted and enforced; and this should be done in 
•our country either by the States or by the General Govern- 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. l8l 



ment, or by both, if such laws can be made more efficient 
thereby." 

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 

I desire at this time less to attempt a summary of fact and 
aigument directly in support of the joint resolution than to 
offer a few considerations touching the present condition of 
the great debate upon the liquor traffic which for many years 
has been so active in all parts of the country j and with the 
consent of the Senate I will venture a few suggestions which 
seem likely to compel attention, whether willing or reluctant, 
from politicians and statesmen and patriots and parties, as 
well as of this great nation, which embraces them all. 

It must be conceded that the use of intoxicating (that is to 
say of poisonous) liquors as a beverage is the chief source 
and immediate cause of more hurt to society and to individ- 
uals than any other one agency which can be named. The 
war of the rebellion cost us fewer lives and less treasure year 
by year during its term of death and devastation than the 
nation has sacrificed annually to the Moloch of alcohol during 
the period which has elapsed since its close. Pestilence has 
not slain sixty thousand victims in any one year since the set- 
tlement of this country. If cholera and small-pox combined 
should sweep away one hundred thousand of our countrymen 
in a season, the nation would organize as one vast funeral pro- 
cession and hang the heavens with the emblems of despair. 
Famine is with us unknown, or at least unnecessary, and when- 
ever it exists is a crime either of the victim or of the com- 
munity, and not an excusable misfortune in any case whatever; 
but in other civilized lands starvation, even during the last 
fifty years, has occasionally taught mankind that the terrible 
word can not yet be dropped from the human vocabulary as 
descriptive of an evil liability to which is extant among men. 

Yet it may safely be said that since the battle of Waterloo, 
now the full period of the life of man, there has been no one 
year in which the combined suffering and pecuniary losses, 
inflicted upon the Caucasian race by war, pestilence, and 
famine has equalled the total of destruction chargeable to al- 
cohol in the same lapse of time. Beyond this, the curse of 
alcohol has not been intermittent and occasional, but perpet- 
ual and inexorable, and I think on the whole increasing like 



152 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

the everlasting and unyielding pressure of gravitation and de- 
pravity. I have no heart and no time to repeat the familiar 
mathematical statements which come to us from municipal 
authorities, from the leading luminaries of all the professions, 
and from every source of authentic information, by which 
we learn that at least three-fourths of the pauperism, insanity, 
and crime, and of the public and private burdens which these 
great evils impose upon us directly chargeable to intoxicating 
drink. Such facts are as familiar as corpses upon a battle- 
field, and seem to attract no more attention. 

I hazard nothing in appealing to the consciousness of every 
one who listens to me to attest that he has seen more of evil 
flowing from this than from any other cause during his whole 
lifetime, and I should hardly fail if I asserted that the per- 
sonal sorrows and afflictions which he has most to bewail 
among friends, kindred, and the community where he may 
dwell are traceable to the same omnipresent curse. Those 
who preach, preach against it, and those who pray, pray 
against it. The press recounts its daily crimes and deviltries, 
and those who drink as well as those who abstain vie with 
each other in stigmatizing rum as the worst thing there is 
extant. Yet somehow the old king does most wonderfully 
hold his own. He is a popular curse. He has a round bil- 
lion of money invested in his business, one-fortieth of the 
property and labor of the country producing and distributing 
death and misery to the American people. His market is as 
sure as that for cotton, corn, or beef. The unnatural appe- 
tite which constitutes the demand has become as insatible 
and almost as universal as the demand for healthy foods. 
This appetite descends with the blood, and the parent thus 
becomes bar-tender, even after death, for his child. 

Multitudes bewail the evils of intoxication, attend temper- 
ance meetings, sing temperance songs, and pay a dollar 
a year to help along the blessed cause, and then lease their 
real estate for saloons, protest against the insertion of prohi- 
bition planks in political platforms, lest remonstrance against 
evil shall upset party supremacy, or, it may be, with upright 
purpose, influenced by profound discouragement and disgust, 
they break down and destroy an organization which they crea- 
ted and which they might control and save and use as a 
mighty power for the removal of the evils which they de- 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 183 

plore. So it goes ; and the evil expands, until we are told, 
no doubt truly, that the production which in the year 1862 
was said to have been 16,000,000 gallons of distilled liquors 
and 62,000,000 gallons of beer, perhaps an exceptionally un 
productive year, was, according to the just-published report of 
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69,000,000 gallons of 
•distilled spirits, 19,000,000 barrels or 700,000,000 gallons of 
malt liquors, and over 2,000,000 gallons of wine, all gone into 
the consumption of this country during the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1885. Really we do not seem to be getting ahead 
very rapidly, according to these figures ; but I suspect that 
the returns of i§62 were imperfect There is, however, I 
think, no doubt that the consumption of all kinds of intoxi- 
cating liquors has increased quite as rapidly as population in 
the United States during the last quarter of a century. This 
is especially true of malt liquors and perhaps of wines. I be- 
lieve the rum traffic to be the great menacing danger of 
America and of civilization. 

REVIEW OF PROGRESS DURING THE LAST CENTURY. 

The thought which I have in mind for discussion upon this 
occasion is embodied in the question, What had we better 
do? I do not assume that I can answer this question. I can 
state what seems to my vision to be the better way — that is 
all that any man can do — and the Supreme Ruler of events 
will direct the pathway of action, as He has from the begin- 
ning until now. 

Sir, we stand upon an elevation to-day at the end of the 
first century of the temperance reform. It is an hour of re- 
trospect and of forecast. Something is revealed by the lamp 
of experience for the guidance of our feet in the century to 
come. What has been done in the last hundred years ? By 
what means has it been accomplished ? What remains to do, 
and by what means and methods shall the remaining work be 
wrought? In the first place, during the century just closed 
we have learned that the use of intoxicating liquors as a bev- 
erage — simply as a beverage and not as a medicine— is an 
evil always useless and hurtful. We have learned that alco- 
hol is a poison and not a food; that it is not useful to the 
human system save under circumstances when a poison may 



184 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

be useful; never to produce or improve health only as it may 
remove an obstruction to the natural and proper action of 
this vital machine so fearfully and wonderfully made. Science 
has become our ally and fortifies our cause impregnably with 
her demonstrations. The Byronic phrase, "Rum and true 
religion," was hardly blasphemous sixty years ago. 

A venerable Christian once told me that when he was six 
years old his sainted mother became converted and joined 
the church in one of the best towns of my own State. Among 
his most vivid recollections was the memory of the visit of 
the distinguished divine who came on two or more occasions 
to his father's house for the purpose of testing the theological 
soundness as well as practical piety of his mother during the 
probationary period which preceded her admission to the 
church, every such interview in the discharge of his sacred 
calling being opened by a liberal drink of New England rum, 
administered by the hands of the candidate for admission. 
It was not only the way of the world, but it was the way of 
the church. Drinking which did not result in actual help- 
lessness was hardly considered an offense, while as a social 
custom its indulgence was as universal as it was delightful, 
and its dangerous tendency was overlooked most strangely 
and wickedly by the great majority of the best of men. Now 
the Christian ministry, Protestant and Catholic, is almost a 
unit against rum. The medical profession is against rum; 
the judiciary is against rum; science, religion, the learned 
-professions as a whole, which one hundred years ago were for 
rum, are now against it. The substantial press of the country 
is against it; intelligence, conscience, all the great forces and 
agencies of society are against it. 

Whenever and wherever any of them advocate its cause the 
work is accompanied by a concession of the evil, and the 
hypocritical or ignorant pretense that it can best be sup- 
pressed by some policy which increases the evil. You can 
not conceive of a political platform which advocates or justi- 
fies the liquor traffic because it does any good. All opposi- 
tion to the evil is deprecated, or its license is sought only 
upon the ground that stringent and prohibitory measures in- 
crease the evil, or that such invasions of personal liberty are 
dangerous to individuals or to the State. It seems to be for- 
gotten that the very essence of all government is an invasion 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 185 

of personal liberty to do wrong or injury, and there can be no 
personal liberty to perform any action hurtful to society and 
to the State which is beyond the jurisdiction and the power 
of the government established for the preservation of both. 
In short, this much, and it is everything in that it is the major 
premise of the syllogism whose conclusion is the destruction 
of the traffic, has been established by the agitation of the cen- 
tury just closed, that the manufacture, sale, and use of alcohol, 
as a beverage is the greatest crime and curse of modern times. 
All the great conservative and preservative forces of society 
are now arrayed against it. That means its ultimate and in- 
evitable extinction. 

There never was an evil which has passed away that was 
not destroyed by public opinion. There is not, there never 
will be, an evil which can withstand the assaults of the en- 
lightened condemnation of a free people who suffer from it. 
Then, Mr. President, we have this impregnable fact and su- 
preme consolation which the past century has bequeathed to 
us — more precious to humanity than a diadem of morning 
stars — that the liquor traffic is doomed and shall be destroyed. 
The demon has been tried and condemned to death in the 
highest court, the court of public opinion. To us is assigned 
the w T ork of execution. Let us proceed to perform that duty 
faithfully, relentlessly, and now. 

FORMS WHICH LEGISLATION HAS TAKEN. 

For a moment let us consider the means by which the 
achievements of the past have been won. There seem to be 
two agencies which influence human action, persuasion and 
force — the actions of individuals upon each other and upon 
the community, the result of moral suasion, embodied in law. 
The law itself becomes in its turn the fortress and re-enforce- 
ment of the moral sentiment and opinions of the community; 
and by the sanctions which belong to its administration and 
the reverence which a free people must always entertain for 
the laws which have once been enacted, even when the reasons 
therefor have become forgotten or obscured in the agitation 
of fresh issues concerning the public weal, the law preserves 
and maintains the good to secure which it was enacted. After 
popular enthusiasm has passed away the enemy comes in again 



1 86 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

like a flood. Then it is that a vigilant and determined mi- 
nority can rally under the aegis of an existing law and summon 
its sanctions as a means of recalling the former acuteness of 
a now blunted public sentiment,as well as to directly suppress 
or restrain the evil prohibited. 

True it is that when a law is really wrong or by the nature 
of things has become obsolete, the reason thereof failing, it 
is impossible for a minority long to enforce it ; but on the 
other hand if the evil remain and the law be right, the fact 
that it is on the statute-book is a very great advantage, espe- 
cially in times of declension in public zeal for the right. 
Both these forces, moral suasion and public law, have been 
employed in the promotion of the temperance reform during 
the century past. It is so patent that moral suasion, by edu- 
cation and argument, has been and always must be the great 
preliminary all-causing and controlling agency in moulding 
public opinion, which alone makes laws and gives permanent 
efficiency after their enactment, that for my present purpose 
I need not press its importance to the future, as well as the 
past further, upon your attention. I wish to speak, however, 
for a few moments upon the character of the legal enactments 
which in the past have been relied upon to promote the tem- 
perance reform. These have been by license, or by prohibi- 
tion of the traffic or immidiate consumption, either by the 
State or by some supervision of the State, as a town or coun- 
ty, by authority derived from the State. The General Govern- 
ment has never passed, as it might do, for the District of Co- 
lumbia and the Territories, any form whatever of prohibitory 
law against the rum traffic. 

All license laws are based upon the idea of taxation for 
revenue, and imply a sanction of the trade as well as partici- 
pation in the profits thereof by the whole people, who, for the 
general good, alone can execise the taxing power. A license 
gives the right to sell in consideration of the fee paid to the 
people, and prohibits such right to those who will not or are 
not permitted to pay the tax. The same sum imposed as a 
penalty for selling in violation of a prohibitory law is payable 
for each and every sale, and there is no consent to the act on 
the part of the public whatever. The fact that the penalty, 
like the fee for the license, goes into the public treasury is of 
no consequence at all. 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 187 

These license laws, or excise laws, although for a while they 
may restrain, are of no ultimate help to the temperance re- 
form. They are, in fact, one of the chief defenses of the 
traffic, and whether high or low are of most pernicious final 
tendency. They bribe the public conscience, they bewilder 
the public intelligence, and they never are long enforced in 
those provisions which are sometimes honestly, but more gen- 
erally with bad design, attached for the apparent purpose of 
restriction. The licensee soon violates all these restrictions, 
and then is as liable to prosecution at the instigation of the 
common seller without any license at all as is the latter at the 
suit of the licensee himself. One violator of law will not 
prosecute another violator of law. 

Then where is the motive for prosecution on his part, the 
creation of which is said to be the great excellence of the 
license law as a means of regulating the trade ? It has dis- 
appeared and the license law is no law at all in its practical 
-effect, save only as it does the general coffer fill with the price 
of blood. So far as it promotes the gilded saloon by closing 
the low groggery I have only to say the latter is far more 
respectable and a lesser curse in the community than the for- 
mer. Ten groggeries will not work the ruin wrought by a 
single palace of strong drink. Every lover of his country 
should vote for the groggery as against the gilded saloon. The 
license law, high or low, is no device of the temperance re- 
form nor of the temperance agitation. It was not developed 
by it. The moral sentiment of the community had nothing 
to do with its origin, nor, unless under a grievous misappre- 
hension, with its present support. It has existed ever since 
there was a traffic, and for the sole purpose of getting money 
out of it for the public pocket, and might just as well be ap- 
plied to the commission of any other offense against the pub- 
lic welfare by those who would pay for the liberty as to the 
trade in rum. A license law seems to me to be radically 
wrong in principle, pernicious in practice, and, so far as I 
know, no such law has ever imposed any real or permenant 
restraint upon the gigantic evil with which civilization is now 
called upon to contend. There remains to be considered only 
the State and local option laws, which have assumed to pro- 
hibit the sale of alcohol for drinking purposes. The amend- 



PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 



ments to State constitutions have as yet become hardly an 
operative force. 

These prohibitory laws have partially succeeded and they 
have partially failed. Why have they so far succeeded ? Be- 
cause they were found on the right principle, and hence ral- 
lied conscience and humanity to their support. Why have 
they so far failed .? Because they were, save in the principle 
involved, in no just sense prohibitory laws at all. They did 
not and they do not and they can not, when enacted by 
a State only, prevent the traffic in intoxicating liquor. The 
liquor traffic comprises vastly more than the retail sale, or 
even the wholesale and retail transaction. The liquor traffic 
is practically independent in a large degree of any State, and 
in an absolute degree of most of the States. True, if the 
drinking habit were not so powerful and universal, it might 
be somewhat different. But now every little hamlet, not to 
say almost every house, sends forth its cry and holds out its 
money to the whole land and to the whole earth, begging for 
strong drink. The supply can be made everywhere, and. 
under the protection of the armies and navies of the nation, 
and of the world if it come from beyond the seas ; alcohol, 
in the original packages, can be rolled into every cabin as 
well as every palace in the country. But how inadequate and 
what a misnomer as a prohibitory law is that which can only 
forbid the sale to the consumer in a State, and how much 
more so one which is operative only for the same purpose in 
a county or town. Even the State constitutional amendments* 
which prohibit the manufacture as well as the sale, must fail 
— inevitably fail. In the very nature of things there is and 
there can be no adequate and permanent remedy but in a 
national constitutional prohibitory law. It will be time 
enough to cry that prohibition does not prohibit when prohi- 
bition has been tried. 

The State of Maine has very greatly improved the condi- 
tion of her people by the operation of her quasi prohibitory 
law ; so of New Hampshire and Vermont. Ask any old resi- 
dent of any one of these States and he will tell you yea. A 
politician with a flask in his pocket or a liquor-drummer from 
Boston might bewail the failure of the prohibitory law in 
those States ; but these laws in their practical operation are 
miracles of good ; and considering the existing appetite. 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 1 89 



which antedated the law and the existence of which was the 
cause of the attempted reform, the enormous and concen- 
trated capital and action protected by nearly all State, and 
the overwhelming power of national law which makes the 
stuff anywhere and carries it everywhere, I say deliberately 
that not even the law against murder is any better enforced 
than these poor halting paragraphs of infantile legislation, 
nicknamed prohibitory laws. 

THE SITUATION NOW AND ITS REQUIREMENTS. 

We have been one hundred years convincing science, 
religion, the professions, the judges who administer the crimi- 
nal laws, and the great mass of the people that alcohol is 
poison, and that its manufacture, sale, and use is the organ- 
ized destruction of individuals and of the body-politic. The 
nature of the legislation which is to remove and renovate all 
is now to be considered and enacted and enforced. Whoever 
believes that the destruction of the liquor traffic is not a 
national issue has made a mistake. Whoever does not com- 
prehend that the removal of that evil is a duty which the na- 
tion is about to perform fails to discern the signs of the 
times. Everywhere the question is up. In the North and in 
the South ; in Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio ; through- 
out the West and Southwest, and all over the sunny South ; in 
every State the agitation is irrepressible, because the evil is 
gigantic and omnipresent. It is impossible to suppress these 
convulsive efforts of the social system to free itself of this for- 
eign and destructive element. It must be eliminated or 
society will die. It is of no use to cry peace, for there is no 
peace. Peace without a complete cure would be the most 
dangerous symptom. It would indicate the destruction of 
vital power, presaging decline and death. 

The American people must do something. What shall 
we do ? 

The Washingtonian movement swept over the country some 
forty years ago like a tidal wave from the sea of life. That 
movement was moral suasion in its most powerful manifesta- 
tion. The great wave subsided and the enemy came in once 
more like a flood of fire, and there be those who believe that 
the last state was worse than the first. Was, then, the Wash- 



I90 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

ingtonian movement wrong? Nay, verily, but it was incom- 
plete. The tremendous public opinion which the discussion 
evoked should have been crystallized into the enduring forms 
of State and national law. The triumph then would have 
been complete and the work secure. We have at last learned 
something, and we are still learning more and more, that it is 
what we save that makes us rich. Deposit all savings in the 
solid banks of constitutional and statutory legislation, State 
and National, and the liquor traffic will not pauperize this 
generation of laborers in the field of temperance reform. We 
shall have a most precious inheritance to leave to the gener- 
ation which comes after us. We shall not repeat the mistake 
of our fathers. Whatever we advance we shall hold by the 
authority of law. The one all-essential thing to be done is 
to put forth every effort to secure political action. All politi- 
cal action is partisan political action where there is opposi- 
tion. State political action is important, but National politi- 
cal action is all-important. 

I have endeavored to indicate why it is indispensable, and 
the only action which can render that of the States either 
permanent or efficient. If either should wait for the other,, 
by all means let the States wait on the nation; let all the 
people of all the States concentrate upon one grand effort to 
amend the National Constitution so as to prohibit the manu- 
facture, the sale, the importation, the exportation, and the 
transportation of alcoholic beverages anywhere within the 
limits of the National domain. That is the way to rescue 
and preserve the States. It is easy thus to create the popular 
sentiment which must exist within the States in order that 
legislation may be secured in their several jurisdictions. The 
evil is National, and the war which saves the nation must be 
fought by the nation. The Constitution, now the charter of 
the rum power, is to be amended by securing a two-thirds 
vote of both Houses of Congress, submitting a proposition 
for that purpose to the States for their action, and its appro- 
val by three-fourths of the entire number of the States. The 
President has nothing to do about the submission of the pro- 
posed amendment to the States, because he legislates only by 
veto, which is nullified by a two-thirds vote of the two Houses, 
and a two-thirds vote must be secured in its favor in the first 
place. Between the submission to the States and ratification 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 191 

by three-fourths of the States a considerable period might, 
undoubtedly would, elapse, but we should succeed in the end. 
All the energy of the reform throughout the Nation could be 
concentrated upon the States one after another, and I sincere- 
ly believe that, once before the people, we can complete the 
work in five years' time. Nationally nothing comparatively 
important can be done now but to get two-thirds of both 
Houses of Congress to vote to submit the proposed amend- 
ment to the people. It is nothing to us whether a Senator or 
Representative be a Democrat or a Republican, a St. John 
man or a Greenbacker, whether he is for license or prohibi- 
tion, provided that he will vote to take the sense of the people 
upon such a proposed amendment. That is what we want of 
him now. Only this and nothing more. 

What honest man can say that this request is unreasonable? 
What political party which cares for political freedom can 
deny to the millions who desire to be heard upon this tremen- 
dous question of the amendment to the Constitution of the 
country, so as to preserve the existence of our nation and of 
our civilization before the only tribunal which can decide it, 
the exercise of this fundamental right? We ask no man or 
party now to pledge himself to advocate the amendment be- 
fore the people; we will take care of that when we get to the 
people. But we demand that he shall give to us, and that po- 
litical parties shall give to us a chance to be heard in the 
proper forum — the forum of the people — which is our right. It 
is our concern, not now his or theirs, whether we are defeated 
or successful when we reach the people of the several States. 
This amendment might be thus submitted to the people in 
1888, or at the latest by 1890, and the amendment itself be- 
come a part of the law of the land before the close of the cen- 
tury. But, sir, how long before a third party can elect a sin- 
gle representative against the old parties upon this issue or 
any other? When shall we get our two-thirds vote? When 
shall we get the Senate, if we postpone all until one or the 
other of the great political parties is destroyed, and its rival 
is in a minority with the triumphant prohibitionists in control 
of the Capitol ? You and I will die without the sight. 

It seems to be the fashion among our third-party friends to 
find all the fault possible with the Republican party, and to 
excuse the Democratic party, which is its only real antago- 



I92 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

nist for the control of national affairs. A Republican might 
retort that this is natural and all right if the Republican party 
sustains the same relation to politics which the church does 
to religion. If any party does good we must look to the Re- 
publican party for it; and it is, I suppose, a consciousness and 
concession of this fact which enables public opinion to hold 
the Republicans to that higher standard of conduct in politics 
which in morals and religion is enforced by sinners against 
the church. We must accept this responsibility or abandon 
" the grand old party" and return to the beggarly elements of 
the Democratic world. That we can not do. Therefore it is 
that the Republican party must and will promote the great 
temperance reform in that way and with such rapidity of ag- 
gressive action as shall be deemed consistent with successful 
results. As others speak from their several standpoints, so do 
I from that of a Republican who is in the party and proposes 
to stay there. If I can accomplish nothing in the party I 
know very well that I can nothing out of it. I helped to 
create the Republican party. I have in my humble way par- 
ticipated in its great deeds. I have shed my little share of 
blood in its career of glory, and there I am at home. Parties 
can not be made to order, and this great organic force is ours. 
I realize its tremendous power, and believe that under God it 
holds in its hands the better fate and higher destiny of Amer- 
ica and of the world. 

Flaws and specks there be on the sun ; they w r ould be in- 
visible but for his own supreme effulgence. What light save 
his own could reveal his imperfections ? 

This great work is easier than it seems. I made a serious 
effort to secure the adoption of a proper plank for the pur- 
pose in the Republican platform at Chicago in 1884, and 
draughted a resolution to that end, which was introduced at 
my request by Hon. E. H. Rollins, my late colleague in the 
Senate, and referred to the committee upon resolutions. In 
its terms it was perfectly satisfactory to Miss Willard, the 
president of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, the 
chief agency in all this temperance reform, simply pledging 
the party to take the sense of the people upon the amend- 
ment of the national Constitution, as I have already indicated. 
Miss Willard talked for thirteen minutes to the committee 
like an angel from heaven, and we retired. The committee 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 1 93 

gave no sign, and the platform was as dumb as a block of 
wood, and the party was beaten, as I fear it will be every time 
in the future until that plank is inserted along with other great 
issues which concern the welfare of the American people and 
mankind. 

But you are not to infer from ail this that no one on that 
committee was in favor of the adoption of the proposition. A 
member told me that many of the committee were for its 
adoption there and then, and more than a majority favored 
the proposed amendment in principle and believed that by 
1888 the Republican party would go to the people with the re- 
solution for submission to the people in its platform. I think 
the failure to do so then was the one fatal mistake in that 
campaign. There was no trouble with the German vote. 
Half of the Republican German vote is for such an amend- 
ment to-day, and the all-important industrial issues would 
have kept the whole of that intelligent suffrage with the Re- 
publican party so far as it ever is with us in any campaign. God 
and conscience would have been for us, and they count for 
something in a close campaign. The whole camp-meeting 
element of the country would have heen aroused for Blaine 
and Logan, and we should have carried all th^ Northern and 
more than one of the Southern States. 

No more such mistakes should be made. The working 
people of this country are naturally with the Republican 
party, and substantially the whole temperence vote will be 
with the party which adopts this issue the next time. Should 
there be wisdom in the councils of the Republican party the 
division of forces fighting for a common cause will be over, 
and for the all-sufficient reason that the Democratic party is 
on the other side, and that there are but two sides to this 
temperance question possible, the right side and the wrong 
side ; the Republican party, if true to itself and to its high 
mission, will in the next general election favor taking the pop- 
ular sense upon this all-important proposition. I can but 
hope that many individual Democrats will cast their influence 
and their suffrage in the same direction. It ought not to be 
a party question; there should be unanimity in a matter like 
this, but perhaps we can not hope so much as this for our 
country. It would be the millenium. 

Let the temperance people of this country consider how 



[94 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 



the labor organizations, with their one great purpose — the 
amelioration of the condition of those whose lives are spent 
in manual toil, by dictating nominations inside the two great 
parties to which they belong and one of which must always- 
succeed — have obtained in the past and are certain in the im- 
mediate future to obtain in the nation and in the State legis- 
lation most promotive to their welfare. 

I have thus endeavored to answer the question, what had 
better next be done in the temperance reform. Every man., 
woman, and child is interested in the answer; future genera- 
tions depend upon that answer for their destiny of weal or of 
woe. Without undervaluing local and State agitation and 
legislation, let us concentrate every energy and effort upon 
the one great work of securing the submission of a proposed 
National amendment to the people of the States. Then we 
shall have before us a period of agitation in the States for its- 
ratification there. That accomplished, we shall have regen- 
erated the Constitution, and the tremendous powers of the 
Nation will soon throttle this giant Despair, who is feeding, 
by day and by night upon the bodies and souls of our coun- 
trymen. Let us wisely conserve our forces and our votes. 
Let us be misled by no false analogies between this struggle 
and the great transition which destroyed the slave power. 
The analogy is an unfortunate one, which can only be realized 
and made pertinent by consummation in a terrible war. 
Peaceful agencies, if wisely employed, will accomplish the 
grand result. Numerous issues essential to the public wel- 
fare are always pending, and great parties which are intrusted 
with national control must embrace and simultaneously deal 
with them all. We most influence those with whom we are 
in harmonious relations. The man who owns an interest in 
the machine gains nothing if he throws it away, especially if 
it be a good one, and he who abandons the church has a poor 
chance to reform it. Stay in the ship and help to sail her to- 
the port of joy. 

But, after all, each man must decide for himself the method 
of his action. Let us, however, at least concentrate on the 
things to be done, that the tremendous forces now dissipated 
in the sand may become a mighty torrent of beneficence and 
sweep away the nation's curse. Abating no whit of effort in 
the way of instruction or persuasion, increasing the activity 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. I95 

of all the agencies now employed to influence individuals, 
municipal organizations, and States, let us lift up the mighty 
banner of national constitutional prohibition. Let us our- 
selves contemplate the subject from this higher elevation. 

The nation refuses to permit the importation of criminals; 
then let us prohibit the importation of the cause of criminals 
and of crimes; we refuse to receive the paupers and outcasts 
of surrounding nations; then let us repel from our borders 
the primal source of poverty, wretchedness and despair. 
What we refuse to receive from abroad, shall we continue to 
manufacture and export? What we refuse or ought to refuse 
to import or export because of its malignant and destructive 
work, shall we as a nation continue to manufacture, distrib- 
ute and consume among ourselves ? Shall we longer divide 
and destroy the result of our most zealous efforts among the 
people and in the States by permitting the National Constitu- 
tion and National power, within their sphere the supreme law 
of the land, to protect the manufacture, the distribution, and 
the wholesale trade in this merchandise of death? Nay, 
verily, if the new century is to complete the temperance re- 
form there is but one way to accomplish it — national prohibi- 
tion must be our watchword. 

Let this issue be carried into every caucus and primary for 
choice of delegates and into every Congressional Convention 
of every party which has any chance of success at the next 
Congressional election — the election of 1886. Let the same 
issue be made in the caucuses which nominate the Legisla- 
tures who make Senators of the United States, and thus 
choose members of both Houses of Congress, who will de- 
mand for the people whom they represent the opportunity to 
be heard in the forum of the States for the amendment and 
regeneration of the Constitution of the country, so that this 
sacred instrument shall become the warrant for destruction, 
and no longer the charter of life and liberty, to the most ter- 
rible curse and crime of civilization. This seems to me to 
be what we had better do next. 

Sir, I will beg your indulgence to repeat the recapitulation 
and conclusion of my remarks upon the joint resolution made 
in the House of representatives ten years since, which con- 
stitute a summary of considerations to which I respectfully 
ask the attention of the Senate and of the country. 



I96 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 



RECAPITULATION. 

"Sir, I only wish further to say that by the indulgence of 
the House I have thus at great but I hope not at unnecessary 
length endeavored to call the attention of Congress and of 
the country to the vast and increasing public evils which exist 
in the land, whose origin lies in the excessive use of that most 
powerful poison, known as alcohol. I have not dealt in spe- 
cific instances, but in masses of fact, as they have been gath- 
ered and accumulated here and there by the statistician, the 
census-taker, the official investigator, and most of all by that 
noble profession which comprises so many of the ablest and 
best of men — a profession whose theory is the gospel of man's 
physical and mental nature, and whose practice is philanthropy 
applied to the details of all human woe — the medical profes- 
sion, which by its researches in the chemical world and its 
incessant and protracted pursuit of the recondite origin of 
disease and of the philosophy of suffering and despair, as well 
as of the sources of vigor and hope and happiness to man- 
kind, has placed civilization under the largest debt that is due 
to any of the learned orders of society; that profession, sir, 
has not failed to stamp upon alcohol the mark of Cain among 
poisons. It is the murderer of men. That noble profession 
has brought it to the doors of the Capitol, and charged it with 
the wholesale death of our people. They assail it as the pes- 
tilence which walketh in the darkness and which wasteth in 
the noonday — as the parent of every crime, as the cup of mis- 
ery ever full; the prolific source of ignorance, poverty, squalor, 
idiocy, insanity in all its dreadful forms, personal ruin, social 
destruction, national ruin — the prime agency of hell on earth. 
And with them come all classes and conditions of men. These 
are not witnesses whose testimony can be denied or gainsaid. 
I will not speak of women in rags and disheveled hair, with 
her van cheek and hollow voice, nor of her children shiver- 
ing on the corners of the street, starving within the shadow 
of churches built to the Most High with the price of their 
blood. It is not fitting here to be sentimental, not would I 
attempt it if permitted. The gravity of the occasion has passed 
beyond all necessity of resort to touching tales and strokes of 
pathetic imagery. The evil is before us. Its infinite extent 
must be admitted. There is nothing to be considered but the 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 197 

remedy and its application. I have endeavored to present 
one that seems to me to have been born of hope. 

"This measure is not proposed by any party that now ex- 
ists. I trust that it will encounter opposition from no party 
whatever. It has been prepared with the knowledge of 
scarcely any one. I am alone responsible for it. It is not the 
project of "temperance men/' as they are sometimes called, 
whether derisively or otherwise. On the contrary, mistaking 
its true character and misconceiving its far-reaching conse- 
quences and its avoidance of conflict with the interests and 
passions of the present time, "temperance men" have com- 
plained that it is an evasion of the conflict. I fear that fifteen 
years of agitation will convince such of us as may then be 
alive that this objection does not recognize the great power of 
existing forces woich must be overcome. It should be remem- 
bered that no battle is won until the enemy is driven from his 
position. He is now intrenched in the Constitution of 
this country. The battle may go on, as it has gone for fifty 
years, without one single blow being struck at the manufact- 
ure of alsohol. And, as hitherto, "men may come and men 
may go," and thousands may continue to fall on either side, 
yet the battle remain forever undecided, because the struggle, 
however violent, is renewed forever by the recruits of succes- 
sive generations. There is no concentration of forces upon 
the main position. Effort is lost because misdirected. Much 
of it, to be sure, is not wholly lost. Moral suasion — that is, 
argument and precept and exhortation, from the pulpit, the 
rostrum, the press, and private admonition — molds public 
opinion and accomplishes wonders for individual men, but it 
lacks the powerful re-enforcement of national law. That it 
can never get until it asks for and demands it. 

"This revolution in national law can be wrought only by 
years of agitation and effort. Local sentiment must be 
awakened almost everywhere. In at least two-thirds of the 
country existing opinion must be reversed before the Consti- 
tution of the country in this respect can be changed. Mean- 
while each state retains all the power it has over both fermen- 
ted and distilled liquors, and as soon as this measure has been 
ratified there would be conferred upon the States largely in- 
creased control over both. Discussion and effort would de- 
mand the attention of the nation as such, and a concentration 



I98 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

of the whole army upon a comprehensive plan of battle to 
carry the citadel would be substituted for isolated and spo- 
radic warfare. And when the battle is once gained it is won 
for all time. This form of effort is infinitely the best way in 
which to accomplish local reform. The facts and arguments 
upon which the temperance reform is based are the same, 
whether urged to influence the action of the individual, the 
local opinion, or legislature of a single state, or the nation at 
large; and the modification of the national Constitution in- 
volves that universal local effort and the creation of that pub- 
lic sentiment everywhere which will result in the enactment 
and enforcement of Prohibitory state and territorial laws. 

"Temperance men object because the first clause of this 
amendment if adopted does not become operative until 1900. 
They fear that they will die without the sight. So they 
may, but how can they object until they have tried to see 
whether they can obtain even this ? Consider the past. Be 
admonished by history. Do not lose everything by attempting 
the impracticable. Remember that this is an effort to pro- 
cure the enactment of law, which must carry the heads and 
hearts of conservative jurists, of dignified and unconvinced 
legislators, and the popular vote. This is a different thing 
from enthusing a popular assembly under the magnetism 
of Mr. Gough. Do not forget either that it is to be the act of 
the nation ; that, however it may be as between God and al- 
cohol, however it may be between the maker of alcohol and 
the higher law, yet we as a nation have assured the maker and 
dealer in liquor that he might vest his capital in permanent 
forms, that he might manufacture this article for all purposes 
whatever, and that we would protect him in the enjoyment of 
his capital and the production of his still. We take from his 
industry vast sums in the way of taxation for the support of 
the Government. True this legalized destruction of national 
wealth infinitely transcends the advantage of the tax, but 
nevertheless we have legalized the traffic for a century. Now, 
have we as a nation any right at once to destroy this industry 
and turn the distiller and his family upon the street to starve? 
Is he not entitled to reasonable notice of the change in 
the national policy, that he may gradually divert his capital 
and turn his business capacity in some other direction and 
train his son in some other employment ? And if this view 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 1 99 

•does not strike you with force, then consider the further fact 
that there are more than $500,000,000, probably $1,000,000,- 
000, invested in this traffic to-day in the United States, and 
that such an interest will for many years to come have 
.sufficient power to defeat any measure which destroys it 
at once. 

" But liquor-makers and sellers are men. Great numbers of 
them are respectable and honest men. I have no sympathy 
with the wholesale denunciation of them as a criminal class. 
Many of them recognize the dreadful consequences which 
flow from the business in which they are engaged ; yet it is a 
lawful business. Circumstances over which often they have 
no control have identified them with it just as others have 
found their way into the pulpit, into Congress, or into other 
avocations of life. It is no more just to denounce them as 
cold-hearted villains, intent upon nothing but the destruction 
of mankind, than it is to assail the personal integrity of every 
man who ever owned a slave. If approached in a proper 
spirit with a proposed reform in which they should be recog- 
nized as men and invited and urged upon considerations 
which must influence any human being, and which would give 
them a chance to save themselves and their families, I believe 
that the actual co-operation of many liquor makers and sellers 
could be secured. 

"Since the introduction of this resolution it has been at- 
tacked as a palpable effort to curry favor with the prohibitory 
sentiment of the country and at the same time avoid offense 
to the 'beer element.' It is no such thing. This measure is 
not of that radical nature to command the vehement appro- 
bation of what are known as prohibitory men, though it must 
and I trust will command increasingly their approval. But 
the question of the manufacture and use of fermented liquors 
is left where it now is, with the States, because it is medically 
still an open question whether the restricted use of such liq- 
uors is not beneficial to the people, although their use is fast 
becoming excessive and an abuse. But there is very slight 
difference of opinion as to the destructive tendency of distilled 
liquors as administered by the "laity," and all agree that the 
great mass of the evils of intemperance arise from their manu- 
facture and use as a beverage. And if the ban of the law can 
be placed upon the manufacture and use of distilled alcoholic 



2 00 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 



liquors as a beverage, the minor abuses resulting from fer- 
mented liquors can well be left wholly to the restraining 
powers of the States, as enlarged by the second clause of the 
proposed amendment. While by no means of a callous or- 
ganization, I certainly do not complain of criticism which 
attacks my personal motives, some of which has been brought 
to my attention. Those motives are not relevant to the 
measure itself. And whatever may be said by others, I am 
consoled by the consciousness that this step is taken after 
long reflection, that my motives are satisfactory to myself, 
and that they will be judged by the only tribunal to whom 
they can be surely known, and whose approval is of much 
consequence. 

"The opposition of the consumer to any national measure 
which should at once deprive him of his beverage would be 
found to be very serious and I fear decisive. But there is no 
class of men who have a stronger desire to see their children 
saved from the chains which hold them to their own dreadful 
doom than the drunkards of this country. This measure has 
been sneered at as a proposed, reform — -for posterity. So it is; 
and as such it ought and I think will enlist the overwhelming 
force of parental feeling in its favor whenever the public mind 
has studied its peculiar features and elements of strength. 

"I think that existing parties may well hesitate to oppose 
this measure. The cause it represents is one of moral reform, 
and it must be re-enforced by legislation. In due time it will 
be. If neither of the great parties now dividing the country 
sees fit to antagonize it, this measure will force its way with- 
out being made the source and object of political strife. Be- 
coming operative so long in the future, it ought not to pro- 
voke the opposition of any political organization, and all men 
should be able to consider this subject calmly and to decide 
upon its merits, 

"If it is a measure enlisting the moral convictions and hu- 
mane sentiments of the people, and especially of that nucleus 
of able, conscientious, and aggressive men who are ultimate- 
ly the ruling power in every progressive nation, although for 
years they may struggle on, fighting and dying under the ban- 
ner of defeat, it will be well for all parties that would live to 
beware how they oppose this proposition. At least let it have 
fair consideration by the House and the country, for it is a 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 201 



subject which will have consideration. It is not a ghost, nor 
will it "down." I ask for it the considerate attention of all 
men now, for the time is coming when it will be forced upon 
them. The political exigency which absorbs and distracts 
the country will pass away, but this evil will not pass away. 
Its extirpation will be imperiously demanded long after the 
question of the succession to the Presidency shall have been 
settled whether by peace or by war. Public men will be de- 
stroyed who touch it, but the cause will survive. Stronger 
arms will uphold and advance the banner until victory floats 
on its ample folds; and the Constitution of the country shall 
yet become the pledge of sobriety and temperance among 
the people, the ally of virtue, and not the charter of this great 
source of ignorance, misery and crime." 

IMPORTANCE OF STATE AND LOCAL-OPTION MOVEMENTS. 

May I be pardoned a further word ? The movements of 
the present time for prohibitory amendments of State consti- 
tutions and for statutory prohibition and regulation, including 
the system of "local-option" effort, are of great importance, 
especially as the means of temporary restraint and as the 
centers of agitation and means of creating enlightened public 
opinion; but such is the nature and scope of the evil and 
such are the relations of the general and special or State 
governments to each other, that nothing but a movement 
based upon the national idea presents a clear prospect of per- 
manent success. The same and greater difficulties arise in 
all action for the permanent or even temporary suppression 
of the liquor traffic that does not include aggressive co-ope- 
ration of the Nationel Government which ruined the country 
under the Articles of Confederation, and which did not abate 
until the whole subject of commerce, foreign and between the 
States, was placed under the control of one sovereign power. 
The combination of local and national effort is indespensible 
to the desired end. Neither can prevail without the other ; 
neither can be postponed for the other without harm. Let 
everybody throw a stone at the liquor traffic, each in his own 
way, when he is so organized that he can not or will not use 
prepared amuniiion nor shoot with the regulation gun. 



202 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 



But still the fact will remain, that to ignore or delay the 
movement for a prohibitory amendment of the national Con- 
stitution so that it may be reserved to be a Yorktown rather 
than a Bunker Hill — that is to say, a crowning rather than a 
preliminary battle — is to decide to fight as a mass of individ- 
uals or an isolation of States rather than as a trained army 
with a general plan of campaign and a national concentration 
of organized power for the destruction of an organized national 
curse. 

It is a division and misdirection of power, where combina- 
tion and definite aim are required to give substantial success 
It is time that the probibitory idea should assume that con-* 
trol of national parties, at least of the Republican party, which 
belongs to a sentiment that is the conviction of three-fourths 
of the people in that party. The Republican party can not 
remain permanently three-fourths for prohibition and one- 
fourth against it. That is less possible than it once was for 
the nation to remain permanently half slave and half free. 
Ideas never compromise. They contend for mastery, but they 
never conciliate nor coalesce. We are at the divining of the 
ways — 

The crisis presses on us, 

Face to face with us it stands, 
With its solemn lips of question, 

Like the Sphinx on Egypt's sands. 

ACTION. 

But I feel like indicating my own inclination for action on 
the subject. For one I have been down here in this hole long 
enough. Sooner or later, and I trust not much later, I hope 
we may come to ourselves, like the prodigal, and proceed to 
climb up and out. I will remain here so long as I think I can 
persuade others to climb with me, in order that we may stand 
on each other's shoulders, and that those first out may lift the 
remainder with proper tackle — for the hole is very deep. Only 
for this will I remain longer in the hole, and for this I will re- 
main, if need be, a great while. Others may, if they will — 
and they will — stay here permanently; but, sir, they will find 
that the masses of the Republican party and of the American 
people of ail parties prefer to be on top of the ground, where 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 203 

there is less dirt, plenty of fresh air, something good to eat 
and fit to drink, and one can see across the country. Besides, 
it may interest some to observe that this hole has already be- 
gun to cave in, and that the gravel is disagreeable in one's 
mouth and eyes. 

Why not let the order be given to rally on top of the ground? 
But there are too many who like, or at least think it best, to 
stay in the hole, and are even now busy drawing the hole in 
after them. 

To this in their cases I do not object. It is well that the 
dead be buried, and if they can be induced to perform the 
work for themselves it will prove that they can still be use- 
ful to mankind. 

But who that is alive desires to be buried alive? 

Emerson advised the young man to "hitch his wagon to a 
star." To follow such advice might be dangerous for con- 
servative parties like us, but to mortals who still breathe even 
this would have advantages over a permanent location under 
forty feet of soil. All the great living issues of the day — in- 
dustrial, social, educational, political — are one; they stand or 
fall together. Temperance is one with them, and they are 
one with it. It is even now the chief practical remedial issue 
for the working men and working women of 'this land. The 
temperance reform and the labor reform are the same reform, 
and you can not long separate the agencies which promote 
them, nor prevent the inevitable union of those whose salva- 
tion depends upon them — the common people of the world. 

It may be suggested in reply to this that it is better for the 
party to eject these pestilent fellows at once, that peace may 
return. But I know of some who are not thus to be disposed 
of and who are inclined to claim their rights to remain, and 
to insist that if anybody is to quit they shall go who would 
use the party as a means to curse and not to bless mankind. 
Besides, the issue is not raised by individuals, and no matter 
who is driven from the ranks the evil is the same ; the issue 
is open, and must be met . and decided by the American 
people all the same. On this occasion I have spoken partly 
as a Republican. But, sir, I do this only because I believe 
that thus do I speak most as an American, most as a man. 
That party, with all its faults and shortcomings and failures to 
reach unto its own ideals, I revere as the great agency which, 



204 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

under God, saved the country and secured its future. That 
party will yet, from the laws of its superior being and unfin- 
ished mission, concentrate its tremendous energies and per- 
fected equipment upon this gigantic national evil until it is 
destroyed and for the promotion of every other cause which 
concerns its national welfare. 

But, sir, we must advance. Our generation is passing 
away. Let not those of us who have chiefly done our work 
forget that the nation will survive us, and that the tree of lib- 
erty will be full of sap after we have passed away. Let us die 
in the directton of hope. If the victory come not in our time 
nor to our advantage, let those who bury us have reason 
to embalm our hearts, that in the thick fight which is between 
us and the holy land chieftains who command our children 
shall, like the crusader, cast the sacred relics far forward into 
the ranks of the foe. So may the armies of the Cross win 
victories from the memory of our devotion to the right. 

Let us, at least, leave behind the examples of unflinching 
and unselfish valor put forth in a sublime cause — a cause 
which it is duty to uphold even though complete success may 
linger until our warfare is ended, and our sacrifices and cal- 
amities, if any there be, endured for its promotion, shall be 
long overpast. * 

I have given Mr. Blair's speech in full notwithstanding its 
great length, not only because it presents the subject of na- 
tional prohibition from the standpoint of the Republican 
party, of which Mr. Blair is a distinguished leader, with refer- 
ence to the theory and purposes of our Federal compact, and 
the nature and scope of the powers which may with safety be 
delegated to the general government by the people, but also 
because it contains an able presentation of the facts and a 
thorough survey of the perilous situation which must impress 
upon every reasonable and unprejudiced mind the necessity 
for prompt and vigorous action. Mr. Blair is of opinion that 
the Federal government may with safety and propriety be 
trusted by the people through the instrumentality of the pro- 
posed constitutional amendment, with the execution of such 



NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 205 

power as seems to those who hold to the democratic theory 
of the government to pertain exclusively to the regulation of 
the internal police affairs of the several States, the exercise 
of which power ought to be retained by the State governments 
or by the people of the individual states. The difference is 
only as to the means of suppressing the evil ; there is no dis- 
agreement as to the necessity for immediate and decisive 
action in the premises. For my part, I would prefer that the 
States first make the trial, and if they, after a fair test of their 
strength in the struggle with this gigantic evil, should fail to 
come off victorious, then I would say, regardless of pet theo- 
ries of government, though they have been my own ; let us 
suppress it by any available means and through any agency 
on earth that will be most effectual in the accomplishment of 
the desired result. We already have a provision in our Fed- 
eral Constitution which gives to Congress the power to declare 
war; and even the chief executive without the aid or advice 
of Congress, -may call out the militia for suppressing insurrec- 
tion or repelling invasion. It is doubtful if a liberal construc- 
tion of that provision would not of itself authorize Congress 
to declare and prosecute a war of extermination against this, 
the worst enemy the nation has ever had since the organiza- 
tion of our government. No insurrection or invasion how- 
ever fierce and destructive can compare in its blood-curdling 
terrors to the blighting sway of the liquor traffic. If the 
people of the several States, acting in their sovereign capacity 
over their own internal affairs can not with their militia tri- 
umph over this enemy; then let us call out the regulars and 
move on to glorious victory. 



CHAPTEE XL 



THE LICENSE SYSTEM. 

HIGH LICENSE, LOW LICENSE, FREE TRADE IN WHISKY. 



So far as I am informed, in all states where general prohi- 
bition laws do not prevail the license system is in vogue.* I 
am not now aware that there is one state in the Union where 
no special restrictions are laid by the State on the manufact- 
ure and sale of intoxicating liquors. While men are permit- 
ted everywhere to engage in other commercial pursuits with- 
out such restriction, they can not sell whisky in any of the 
states without paying large sums for the privilege, in addition 
to the ordinary taxes imposed upon dealers in the harmless 
commodities of the country. If the right to traffic in whisky, 
or rather, intoxicating liquor, is absolute and inalienable, 
then, by what authority does the State impose any restriction 
upon its exercise which is not imposed upon the traffic in 
other goods, wares, and merchandise recognized as legitimate 
articles of commerce? Can any man who makes the least pre- 
tensions to capacity for logical reasoning give an idea of the 
distinction between the right to restrict and the right to de- 
stroy? There is not, and in the very nature of things, cannot 
be, any half-way ground in the argument. If the State can 
lawfully restrict in the slightest degree, then where must it 
stop before transgressing the boundaries of legitimate consti- 
tutional authority? If any advocate of license who denies the 

*See Appendix. Some of the states collect taxes, but refuse to license. 

(206) 



THE LICENSE SYSTEM. 207 

right of the State to prohibit, will draw for me the line where 
the right of restriction by taxation or otherwise shall stop, 
then I will take back all that I have said in advocacy of the 
majority to absolutely prohibit not only the manufacture and 
sale of intoxicating liquors, but anything else that is found to 
be detrimental to the welfare of the people at large, I promise 
that the next book I write will be in favor of the destruction 
of all human governments, the abrogation of all laws, the com- 
plete overthrow of all sovereign power and legislative author- 
ity. I will be ready to accept the inevitable result. I will be 
ready then to admit that anarchy is not only right, but that it 
is conducive to the establishment and maintenance of good 
government. The right of a state to restrict by special taxa- 
tion or positive law the exercise of any calling or business 
whatever is as palpable, inconsistent, and irreconcilable with 
the personal liberty contended for by the opposition as Egyp- 
tian darkness with the burning rays,* of a mid-day sun. No 
reasonable mind can contemplate for a moment the idea of 
the contemporaneous exercise of these two inconsistencies 
without being overwhelmed by the grandeur and sublimity of 
this monstrous absurdity. And yet how full is the world, how 
full is this great state of Texas, of men, and men too who have 
been honored by the very highest distinctions within the gift 
of the people, who, in one breath, advocate high license on 
principle, and in the next breath overturn and destroy the 
whole basis of their argument, denying the existence of any 
such principle by assailing the right of the government to pro- 
hibit. When the argument is complete, and stands out in 
bold relief upon the stage of human sophistry where it be- 
longs, it is something like "the play of Hamlet, with Hamlet 
left out." The argument turns upon and destroys itself. In- 
deed, it is well enough that it does, for the reason that com- 
mon sense and good logic have more decent and difficult 
work to perform. But I leave this self-emasculated proposi- 



208 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

tinn to the further contemplation of the* reader, who can not 
fail to appreciate the absurdity. 

The next question I shall consider is, What good can high 
license accomplish in the suppression or correction of the 
evil ? Will it have the effect to diminish the sale and con- 
sumption of this demoralizing fluid ? Such is not the purpose 
of high license. It diminishes one thing and one thing only, 
and that is competition. When the whisky business of a 
town is carried on by ten saloons, it will probably reduce- the 
number to five, provided the license is doubled. If it is mul- 
tiplied by three or four the number of good healthy, thriving 
saloons will likely decrease in inverse proportion. They will 
not have to sell their liquid insanity for any greater price by 
the drink and if they did, it would not make a particle of 
difference, as drinking men do not stand on a nickle. The 
increase of their trade by the suspension of those which are 
unable to pay the increased license for the privilege of com- 
peting with them in the corruption of humanity, more than 
repays them for the increase of taxes and by reason of their 
wealth and magnificence, they become if possible, more re- 
spectable and perhaps less loathsome in their appearance and 
surroundings.* 



*Rev. DeWitt Talmadge, D. D., in his sermon on High License says : 
Now, this high-license movement is the property qualification in the 
most offensive shape. Why do you not carry it out in other things ? Why 
do you not stop all these bakers until the bakers can pay a $1,000 license ? 
Why do you not shut up all the butchers' shops until the butchers can pay 
$ 1,000 or $500 ? Why do you not stop these thread-and- needle stores and 
the small dry-goods establishments, except that a man pay $500 or $1,000 ? 
"Oh." you say, "that is different." How is it different ? "Well," you 
say, "the sale of bread and meat and clothes does no damage, while the 
sale of whisky does damage." Ah, my brother, you have surrendered the 
whole subject ! If rum selling is right, let all have the right ; and if it is 
wrong, $500 or $i,ooo are only a bribe to Government to give to a few 
men a privilege which it denies to the great masses of the people. Why 
do you not carry out this idea of licensing only those who can pay a large 
license ? — give them all the privilege." 



THE LICENSE SYSTEM. 209 

Hence more attractive. Their music is more delightfully 
bewitching, and their games more varied and enticing. High 
license, if it has any. perceivable effect upon the liquor traffic, 
has a tendency to make it more respectable, and consequently 
increases rather than diminishes man's inclination to drink. 
There is no necessity to consume time and space in the dis- 
cussion of the effects of low license and medium license; the 
principle is precisely the same. 

There is no small number of people who are, or profess to 
be of opinion that the best way to prevent drunkenness is to 
take the bridle off of the "critter" and turn him loose upon 
society. They speak of the good old days of our unsophisti- 
cated ancestors when our fathers and our grandfathers took 
their corn and their barley to the still-house, the grain in one 
end of their homespun sacks and a big rock or log chain in 
the other to make them balance across their saddles, had it 
ground up and distilled into whisky, which was so good, pure, 
and free from adulteration that it never made any one drunk, 
though he poured it down by the gallon. That these good 
old men, every one of whom took a bee line for the pearly 
gates just as soon as the spirit left him, always kept an old- 
fashioned decanter "dearer to their hearts than the old oaken 
bucket which hung in the well," which "dear old decanter" 
was kept full of pure, unadulterated corn or rye whisky, and 
that all the family drank to their heart's content, and none of 
them "flickered." Ah, those good old days that we read about 
when every body was honest, when every body was moral, 
when every body was righteous, and belonged to the church, 
and when nobody talked about his neighbor. 

When there were no drunkards, no thieves, no murderers, 
no traitors to their country. What if those saintly person- 
ages were to come down from their lofty seats beyond the 
starry hosts and behold for a moment the moral depravity of 
their degenerate sons and grandsons who are moving heed- 



210 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

lessly along the road to a drunkard's frightful eternity? 
Would they recall with delight and satisfaction the recollec- 
tion of those " dear old decanters " which sat upon the 
mantle ? If those saintly old grandfathers are now permitted 
to look down from the shining portals of heaven upon the 
rich harvest of drunken vagabonds which sprang from their 
loins and those i% dear old decanters " of unadulterated whisky, 
would they not in all probability recall that good old pas- 
sage of scripture they used to read while their boys were 
enjoying the decanter: " Be not deceived; God is not 
mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also 
reap ?" In those days of sinless perfection, free whisky might 
do, but it would be a very dangerous experiment in this cor- 
rupt age of the world. But the real truth of the matter is, 
that the people who lived in the days of our grandfathers' 
unadulterated whisky, " old oaken buckets," and " dear, old 
decanters," were not any better than we are to-day. Neither 
were they any more sober, if all of the truth could be known. 
The bad things they did in those days were not so easily 
found out as they are to-day when railroads, telegraphs, 
daily papers, and all other contrivances for the spread of evil 
reports are everywhere in the land. The report that a neigh- 
bor or his young boy was drunk at a certain time, if thought 
to be a matter of sufficient importance to start out on a 
journey could not get beyond the immediate neighborhood 
or vicinity of its occurrence until it had become too old and 
stale to excite the least degree of interest. And so with all of 
the other short-comings of our grandfathers and their neigh- 
bors. It is, moreover, absurd to suppose that our unskilled 
ancestors understood better the art of making whisky than 
those who are at this time engaged in the unhallowed busi- 
ness, and while it may be that many poisonous substances are 
put into the stimulating decoctions of to-day in order to 
make them kill quicker and at a greater distance, there is no 



THE LICENSE SYSTEM. 211 

law which compels a man to drink them, and if he is able to 
afford it, he can get as good an article of spirituous liquor to- 
day as he could have obtained at any age of the world. Will 
any man doubt or dispute the proposition that as perfectly 
pure and harmless whisky can be made now from the same 
materials as could have possibly been manufactured by our 
forefathers who made no pretensions to chemical science ? If 
such scientific knowledge has infused into the whisky of to- 
day a more active and more dangerous property than it 
possessed in olden times, do you suppose that the manufac- 
turers would not throw aside the science and return to the 
simple methods adopted by our ancestors for the manufac- 
ture or production of pure, unadulterated whisky ? Adulter- 
ated whisky ! What an idea ! What ingredient on this wide 
earth can be found that could be termed an adulteration of 
this deadly product of the still ? 

Having said this much in regard to the adulteration of 
whisky, to which so much of drunkenness is attributable by 
these people who are always pining for the good old days of 
our " grand daddies " and free whisky, I desire to submit 
another proposition, and that is this : you simple minded sons 
of a sanctified ancestry, bring me one single decanter of that 
pure, holy, unadulterated whisky that will not make a man 
beastly drunk if he drinks enough of it, and I will at once 
change the positions I am now contending for and advocate 
with all the feeble powers of my mind the abrogation of all 
license laws and every legal restriction ; and instead of wast- 
ing the energies of my mind upon the study of methods to sup- 
press and destroy the evil, I will boldly advocate its free and 
unfettered manufacture and sale. When whisky is bereft of 
the demon which lurks in every drop of its constituent ele- 
ments then its production and sale will need no restriction or 
regulation whatever at the hands of the government. It will 
then cease to produce insanity, death, misery and despair, and 



2 12 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION, 

all the catalogue of indescribable evils which now cry aloud 
for a practical remedy. What need would there then be of 
attempting to suppress it? 

But I cannot close this chapter without recurring to the 
Constitution, to some of whose misconstrued provisions and 
limitations of power the opposition to prohibitory laws are 
constantly appealing. If I am not mistaken, I believe that 
the Federal Constitution declares that taxation shall be equal 
and uniform. To construe this provision according to the 
same rule demanded by some of our Democratic leaders for 
the construction of other provisions or limitations of the same 
instrument referring to sumptuary laws and the depriving of a 
man of life, liberty and property, without due process of law, 
and make all of them apply directly to the acts of the indi- 
vidual states, or their people, would force the State govern- 
ment to abolish the disproportionate taxation on the traffic 
in whisky. If the sale of whisky is as legitimate and harmless 
within itself as traffic in other commodities, as is strongly in- 
sisted by the advocates of license, then, how can we reconcile 
the action of the State governments in imposing such burdens 
upon the business, with that provision or requirement of the 
Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land, which de- 
clares that taxation shall be equal and uniform? But the true 
construction of these provisions, as has long since been estab- 
lished by authority, is, that they are intended to limit and res- 
train the powers of Congress and have no more application to 
the legislatures of the states in the enactment of laws for the 
regulation and government of their internal affairs than they 
have to the sovereign power of a foreign country. The State 
of Texas can lawfully impose taxes ad libitum, whether alto- 
gether equal and uniform or not, if not prohibited by the plain 
import of her own Constitution, provided it does not operate 
to the prejudice of the rights of persons which are specially 
protected by the positive terms of the Federal Constitution. 



THE LICENSE SYSTEM. 213 

The drummer's tax was recently declared unconstitutional be- 
cause it was held to be in conflict with the provision of the 
constitution of the United States, which gives to Congress the 
exclusive right to regulate commerce between the States, and 
not because of the objection that such taxes were not equal 
and uniform: (Constitution XL S. Art. i, Section VIII). From 
this and what has been said in a preceding chapter, it is, I 
think, clearly to be seen that the provisions, limitations, and 
positive requirements of the organic law of of the Federal gov- 
ernment have no application whatever to the power of the 
states to tax, license, or destroy the traffic in liquor or any- 
thing else detrimental to her people. If such construction 
can be placed upon the Federal Constitution as would abridge 
the rights of the different states to pass laws for the suppres- 
sion or prevention of crime within the limits of their several 
jurisdictions, then is the Democratic theory of our system of 
government untrue, and the people of Texas ought to know it 
at once. They ought not to be kept in the dark. The pre- 
tended leaders of the party who are harping on constitu- 
tional limitations ought to fall into the ranks of the opposite 
party, where they belong. Those men, however high in author- 
ity, who go about over the country appealing to the spirit of 
our American institutions as interpreted by the founders of 
the Demoaratic party, ought to get for their own use a polit- 
ical primer, and study the rudiments of Democracy, the first 
principles of constitutional government. 

As stated before, the question of constitutionality^with ref- 
erence to the organic law of our own State is fully solved by 
the fact that the authority for the proposed prohibitory law is 
to become a part of the Constitution itself; and being the last 
expression of the people, (the Constitution makers), upon Jthe 
subject, it would prevail over any existing provision which 
might be construed to be in conflict with the amendment. The 
license system has perhaps had the effect to diminish the evils 



214 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

of drunkenness, but it has proved itself powerless to destroy 
it. Local option has done much good in some localities of 
the State, but State Prohibition is the grand effort which must 
accomplish more than them all. 

Before closing this chapter I desire to notice another ob- 
jection to the passage of prohibitory laws by a State which is 
frequently urged by the opposition. That objection is, that 
the passage of such laws by the State or by the people of a 
subordinate division of the same und^r the provision of the 
local option law in noway interferes with the right of the Uni- 
ted States to issue licenses in accordance with the internal 
revenue laws of the general government ; and I have within 
the last few months heard the advocates of whisky make use 
of that argument, and that too with wonderful effect. Within 
the same time I have read a lengthy article in a respectable 
weekly newspaper of Texas, for whose editor I have the very 
highest regard, in which it was insisted that as the Federal 
government would not, and could not, be prohibited by State 
law from issuing licenses to whisky dealers, such law was 
practically inoperative by reason of the conflict. That there 
are some people in the world so ignorant of the general prin- 
ciples of our government as to be influenced by such a fal- 
lacy, is by no means surprising ; but that men who make any 
sort of pretension to a knowledge of public affairs to entertain 
or express such an idea is truly an intellectual phenomenon. 
Aside from the long line of decisions of the higher courts of 
the country, it would seem that ordinary common sense would 
suggest the absurdity of such a proposition. It is true that there 
is such a law enacted under the authority of that provision of 
the Federal Constitution which gives to Congress the power 
to collect taxes for the support of government which makes it 
incumbent upon every man who wishes to engage in the liquor 
trafhc, to provide himself with an internal revenue permit or 
license for which he pays an amount fixed by such law, the 



THE LICENSE SYSTEM. 215 

object of the law being to raise money to carry on the 
machinery of the general government. This law is general in 
its operation and takes no cognizance whatever of the restric- 
tion by way of license or otherwise imposed by the several 
States. Suppose a man is too poor to take out the license re- 
quired by the State, county and municipal authorities within 
the limits of which he proposes or desires to do business ? 
Suppose he should think that these laws are unjust, oppres- 
sive, and subversive of his personal liberty ; and ignoring the 
right of the State, county, or city to interfere with his busi- 
ness by their exorbitant taxation, should take out a license 
from the United States government and open his saloon in de- 
fiance of State law ? If the payment of this internal revenue 
tax gives him an absolute right, independent of the State, 
county, or municipal authority, to " go on with his rat kil- 
ling," then he can go on with impunity, in spite of prohibi- 
tion, whether local or general, statutory or constitutional. It 
is not very strange or unaccountable that the United States 
government, will accept a man's money and issue a license if 
he is fool enough to risk the ability of the State and local 
authorities to punish him for a violation of their laws. 

All the general government can do when he pays his in- 
ternal revenue is, to say to him, "So far as I am concerned, 
you may sell enough mean whisky to destroy every home and 
blast every ennobling aspiration in your State, and you will 
not be molested by a prosecution in my courts. I have noth- 
ing whatever to do with any controversy that may arise be- 
tween you and your State or your municipal government. 
That is none of my business, and if you get into the jailor 
penitentiary, it is no fault af mine, and I have no power under 
the Constitution or laws to relieve you from the consequences 
of your folly. To make the proposition more clear by way 
of illustration; here are two persons who have an interest, or 
supposed interest in some tract of land; a third party comes 



2 1 6 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

along and desires the privilege of cutting oft the timber which 
is of value. He goes to one of the part owners and purchases 
his interest or secures his permission to enter upon the prem- 
ises. When he gets into possession, instead of taking such a 
proportion as is covered by his privilege, he attempts to take 
it all. Now it is plain to be seen that the man who had con- 
sented to the entry without regard to the consideration he 
receives, can have no cause of complaint and has no right to 
object to the trespass. But the other part owner may prose- 
cute his action of trespass and damages, and in some cases 
may have a writ of injunction against him. To apply the 
illustration to the three parties concerned in the matter before 
us; the United States government claims, and we assume 
justly, an interest in the blood-money of the traffic in liquor, 
and the several State governments also set up a claim to an 
interest in the same unholy price of so much of the social, 
moral and material prosperity and happiness of their people. 
The saloon-keeper compromises with the general government 
and undertakes "to stand off" the agents of the State when 
they come around to demand her share of the spoils. In this 
whisky-selling business it must be evident that it takes three 
to make a bargain. Perhaps I may say four, and sometimes 
it takes five. 

First, a man must make a bargain with the devil, and his 
conscience, if he has one, for the price of the excellent ser- 
vice he is to do in the promotion of his cause. He must, in 
the next place, make a bargain with Uncle Sam for the priv- 
ilege of drumming for his satanic employer. Then, before he 
can begin his ungodly work of destruction he must settle 
with the State and if he lives in an incorporated city he must 
pay to its government a hundred or so dollars to aid in the 
prosecution of increased crime, to punish and maintain in 
the city prisons the poor, pitiful drunkards he has made in 
the pursuit of an occupation made lawful by the sanction of 



THE LICENSE SYSTEM. 217 

three seperate and independent governments. And yet they 
say that to engage in this business is a natural and even inal- 
ienable right when it absolutely requires the combined sanc- 
tion of three distinct systems of civilized government to 
secure to a man, covered all over with the glories of American 
liberty — personal liberty — this God-given, blood-bought, 
inalienable right to traffic in whisky. But for all this there is 
one government established before the origin of human dynas- 
ties or republican institutions from whose transcendent author- 
ity no license to make drunkards, vagabonds, and criminals 
can ever be issued. The penalties it inflicts upon the con- 
science of the dealer in the elements of death and social dis- 
order and ruin may never be known to the public; he may 
crush during the whole of his worse than useless existence 
every compunction of the silent monitor within his casehard- 
ened breast, but there will come a time in the not far distant 
beyond when he will certainly appear before a court, not to 
answer a prosecution for a failure to pay occupation taxes 
and to take out license, but for a whole catalogue of murders 
and other high crimes and misdemeanors of which he may 
perhaps never have heard during life, but for which he finds 
when too late that he is to be held criminally responsible 
before a court where' all secrets are made known, 



CHAPTER XII. 



PROHIBITION AND THE BIBLE. 



Deeply and firmly implanted in the human consciousness 
there is found in every age and social condition of mankind 
an idea or realization of dependency coupled with a feeling 
of respectful awe and reverence for some superior being or 
intelligence. Man in his most barbarous and unenlightened 
state falls down and worships at the shrine of some sort of 
object which he deems superior to himself. Whatever of 
goodness and virtue and all else that constitutes the highest 
qualities he may in his crude notions conceive as belonging 
to the best of his race, he attributes to that superior being in 
the highest degree. In a state of profound heathenism, when 
brute force and courage are supposed to be the highest traits 
of character and most worthy of emulation, the mind as- 
cribes to that being which it worships and adores, those esti- 
mable qualities in a degree beyond its own comprehension. 
In more advanced ages of man's civilization, when his mind 
becomes developed and expanded, when he learns more of 
wisdom and of virtue and how to read the foot-prints of God 
in the light of his infinite goodness and mercy, he loses sight 
of those sterner attributes of his maker which terrify the ig- 
norant and the barbarous and delights to contemplate his 
milder majesty and to the beautiful order of his works, learns 
to conform the order of his life. This respect and venera- 
tion towards God and his revealed word to-day exercises, and 
justly so, more influence upon the human mind and affections 

(218) 



PROHIBITION AND THE BIBLE. 219 

and upon the thoughts and actions of mankind, than all other 
instrumentalities combined. 

So strong are the religious feelings and so deep-seated and 
inexorable the religious prejudices of mankind in general that 
if you can only engage them upon the prosecution of any 
work, however hazardous, or in the support of any proposi- 
tion, however absurd, when properly understood, you can 
overcome all opposing forces and all opposing arguments, 
however deeply founded upon reason and experience. The 
reader will readily call to mind from well-authenticated his- 
tory at least a hundred illustrations of the truth here asserted. 
To illustrate extensively is not within the scope of this work, 
which is intended to be brief and strictly practical. If you 
can convince the masses of the people that prohibition is in 
the least inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible, and 
that Christ, while on earth, was a wine-bibber and taught 
that intemperance was a virtue and drunkenness was no 
crime ; if you can get them to believe that this immaculate 
exemplar of the truths of his own precious gospel favored the 
establishment and maintenance of saloons, then there is no 
use to go on with an effort to adopt prohibition in the State, 
or even in a county or a precinct. When the advocates 
of whisky gain this point, which they are making a desperate 
effort to do, they will have accomplished their work and the 
advocates of the measure may as well surrender at once. Nor 
am I disposed to say in view of the high estimate I have ever 
been taught to place upon the beauty of Christ's spotless 
character and example, that the people would not be right in 
voting against prohibition or against any other human insti- 
tution if it should be established as a fact that he when on 
earth had set a precedent for their action by his great and 
glorious example. 

And this brings me to the discussion of the question: Did 
Christ, by precept or otherwise, put himself on the record as 



2 20 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

opposed to prohibition? In other words, did He, the ac- 
knowledged Son of God, by his works declare himself in favor 
of saloons? If He did, and I can be made to believe it, then 
I am just so much of a good christian, although I make no ex- 
travagant pretensons, to follow the precedent and to take back 
every word I have said in the preceding pages, and taking up 
my cross, I will fall into the bloated, staggering ranks of the 
anti-prohibitionists and fight a good fight; at least, I promise 
that I will fight to the very best of my ability. I should not 
consider a man a good, consistent follower of the meek and 
lowly Lamb, if he could not afford to stay with him at all 
times and under all circumstances, through fiery trials and 
"through evil as well as through good report." Not only will 
I align myself with the opposition, but I will do all in my 
power to persuade others to do likewise. And why should I 
not? If we imitate Christ, can we be far in the wrong? I 
think not. And right here I desire to notice, rather by way 
of parentheses, that the saloon-keepers and their spokesmen,, 
whom I am not disposed to personate, while they are propos- 
ing to follow Christ in this one particular, in selling, drinking, 
and advocating whisky, at all times, studiously avoid follow- 
ing him in any other of his teachings. Count up, if you can, 
what other things they have or propose to do to show forth 
the glory of his name, or to advance the cause of his kingdom 
on earth. Let us right here demand of them that if they pro- 
pose to follow Christ and His teaching in the matter of sell- 
ing and advocating whisky (?) they must show their consist- 
ency by accepting and following Him in all others. If they 
will only do that, society need not trouble itself about the 
whisky they may sell while in the act of imitating Christ. We 
would have no*need for prohibitory legislation either statu- 
tory or constitutional. No more necessity for them than there 
was in Christ's day. 

But having carried that branch of the argument to a legiti- 



PROHIBITION AND THE BIBLE. 



mate absurdity, I will go back a little farther and see if there 
is any authority in the Bible for the assumption that its teach- 
ings are in any way opposed to the principle of prohibition. 
The example of Lot is often referred to by these latter-day 
followers of Christ and exponents of the truths of the Bible. 
We are nowhere commanded to take Lot as our criterion. 
On the other hand, his character suffers the greatest disparage- 
ment in many other particulars. Take every one of those old 
Testament characters who drank to excess, and you will find 
that the act was clearly disapproved and generally punished. 
In not a solitary instance do we find that God ever bestowed 
a special blessing on a man because he got drunk. There is 
one peculiarity about the old Testament biographies, and that 
is, that they show up the bad as well as the good side of their 
heroes or subjects. If one sinlessly perfect life is given 
throughout the whole Bible including both the New and the 
Old Testaments, except that of Christ, I am unable to call it 
to mind. Take Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon — 
take all of the old prophets and patriarchs whose histories 
have been written, and we find them covered all over with 
blemishes, blemishes recognized and severely condemned by 
the inspired historians themselves. 

Come down to Christ's time and take up the personal his- 
tory of his disciples and immediate associates, and you will 
find evidence of the weakness of the flesh, though walking in 
the shining light of the divine presence. Thomas was a scep- 
tic and Peter a coward. Judas, though a traitor, was not the 
only one of Christ's companions who had faults. Because 
Thomas had his doubts, does it follow that we all should be 
sceptics ? Because Peter got scared and denied Christ, does 
it authorize us, nay, even require us to do likewise in the face 
•of the commandment which informs us of the fact that he 
who is ashamed of Christ before men, of him will Christ be 
.ashamed before his father which is in heaven? Because 



2 22 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

Christ for no other purpose on earth than to make a demon- 
stration of his power converted water into wine, does it follow 
that he intended thereby to set an example to the world which 
would lead to the practical abrogation of all of his teachings ? 
It is not material whether it was fermented or unfermented 
wine as some of our prohibition friends and advocates have 
labored so hard to establish. Put the very harshest construc- 
tion upon it and admit that Christ made the very strongest of 
wine for the use of the guests at the wedding and that they 
drank it even to drunkenness, of which I believe, we have no 
account, the act must be construed with reference to the con- 
text of his life. 

In construing a law for the government of human action we 
are bound to construe it with reference to the objects it was 
intended by the legislature to accomplish, whatever may be 
its literal import. Shall the actions of our precious Redeem- 
er be gauged by a harsher and less liberal rule of construc- 
tion? Shall we leave out of our enquiry into the rectitude 
and moral significance of any isolated action of His while on 
earth, the object and purpose of His glorious mission, to make 
men nobler and better, to redeem them from a lost, ruined 
and hopeless condition? In view of the matchless consist- 
ency of His life, with its sublime purposes and objects; ofthe 
life which He sacrificed upon the altar of man's possible re- 
demption, is it charitable — is it not sacriligious to even sug- 
gest that He intended by the first manifestation of His divine 
power over the"elements around Him to lay the foundation of 
a power and establish a principle that would finally work out 
the complete overthrow of His kingdom on earth? It is un- 
just to Christ. It is shameful to humanity. I am surprised 
that a man who pretends to even a shadow of reverence for 
the christian religion, who has the least regard for the Bible, 
or respect for himself, would stand up before an audience in 
a chri ttan land, composed even of drunkards, fresh from the. 



PROHIBITION AND THE BIBLE. 223 

slime of the gutter, and charge Christ with being the author 
of so foul and blighting a curse as the infamous liquor traffic. 
Or to say that He, by any act of His, wilfully encouraged this 
debasing and destroying evil which has done more to thwart 
and impede the progress of the cause than the devil and all of 
his angels operating through all other mediums, 

Solomon, the strongest in mind, though probably not so 
strong in other respects, of the old testament writers, wrote 
many centuries before Christ: "Wine is a mocker and strong 
drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not 
wise." Christ was aware of the fact that the writer of those 
words, bristling with experimental truth, had been king of a 
great nation, the nation from which He himself had descended. 
He knew that with all his faults he had written with the hand 
of inspiration, and that what he had written was a part of the 
scriptures, when He spoke those other memorable words; 
"Search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal 
life, and they are they which testify of Me." He did not say 
You must not accept as the truth as they were a part of the 
law and inspired words of his Father, the writings of Solomon 
and especially that part which positively declares that "Wine 
is a mocker, and strong drink is raging." He also knew that 
there had long existed a class of people, or rather an order 
or society of persons who called themselve Rechabites, who 
had ever been faithful to their vow of total abstinence, and 
who had been rewarded by authority for their ndility to their 
obligations, and yet we nowhere find where He rebuked them 
or expressed the least disapprobation on account of their 
abstinence and the honor they had received. The order, I 
believe, existed in His day. Others of the same character 
were in the same land, but yet He nowhere commands or ad- 
vises them to turn from the alleged error of their way and 
patronize the saloon-keepers. 

I must pass on to something else, but before leaving this 



224 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

innocent man who has been wickedly and falsely accused of 
encouraging the liquor traffic, I desire to return to the event 
of the marriage at Cana of Galilee. Christ did not go there 
to interfere with the established customs of society. His 
a time had not fully come." He did not go there as an invi- 
ted guest to disturb the customary joys of a wedding occasion. 
His surroundings, His authority, His influence were not such 
as would permit Him to assume the unenviable and generally 
obnoxious position of a public censor. He had up to that 
time done no extraordinary act which evinced in the slightest 
degree that He was God in the flesh, and even if He had been 
so recognized at the time it is doubtful if He could have pre- 
vailed by the use of ordinary means or persuasion upon the 
host or the guests to have laid aside the long established 
custom of having wine upon wedding occasions. Suppose 
you are invited to a wedding or any other ordinary social 
gathering; you have peculiar tastes which prominently devel- 
ope and bring to the surface your likes and dislikes either in 
the matter of diet or apparel. You go to the table and you 
yet something you don't relish ? Is it the part of good breed- 
ing to complain? Suppose that some lady's dress is not 
made in a fashion to suit you; would it be very good man- 
ners for you "to speak right out in the meeting" and say what 
you thought upon that very delicate subject? 

Suppose, furthermore, to thoroughly meet and answer this 
question, that there was a scarcity of some article that, by the 
ordinary custom of the country, was thought indispensable, al- 
though you might think entirely otherwise, even that the arti- 
cle was positively, though not fatally, injurious. Suppose that 
you had it within your power, even by the potency of a word, 
to gratify the supposed wants of the company, and thereby 
complete the happiness of the occasion,you would be very apt 
to do it for no other purpose than to fill up the measure of the 
happiness of the guests. 



PROHIBITION AND THE BIBLE. 225 

We can not at all times ignore conventionalities, especially 
when no great injury is done, but, ah, suppose if such a sup- 
position is at all allowable, that you felt within you the im- 
pulses of a deity waiting for a fit opportunity to manifest it- 
self in the performance of a miracle? Here I draw a veil over 
the scene and leave the balance to the serious contemplation 
of the reader. 

But an anti-prohibitionist orator, we will call him for short, 
"Orator Purl"— asks, "Does not St. Paul, or Solomon, or some 
of the prophets say somewhere in the lids of the Bible to a 
man named Timothy, or Clover, "Take a little whisky or 
brandy, or something of the sort, for your headache, or sick 
stomach, or words to that effect?" Then, if it is admitted that 
something of the sort was actually said by St. Paul, the con- 
clusion naturally follows, in their estimation, and according 
to their false logic, that the saloon business is not only a le- 
gitimate occupation, but specially recommended by the script- 
ures. 

God made every thing for a noble purpose. 

The alcoholic principle, whatever we may call it and 
whatever form it may assume, has not only its proper place 
in the physical universe, but in all probability is as indispens- 
able in its place as any other however apparently useful. 
That wine, whisky and brandy are sometimes beneficial in 
cases of actual sickness as arsenic, morphine, strychnine, 
and even other preparations known to materia medica may 
safely be conceded. Indeed, in every law that has been passed, 
or proposed, I believe that provision is made for sick 
stomachs and such bodily ailments, as the one from which 
Timothy was suffering when St. Paul advised him to take 
a little wine for his stomach's sake and his often infirmities. 
According to every construction of human language and in- 
ference from the same, I would suppose that Timothy was not 
only sick at the stomach but that he was often subject to such 



2 26 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

attacks. Suppose, however, that Timothy was not sick, Paul 
evidently thought that he was. Perhaps he looked pale and de- 
pressed in his spirits, and Paul, not being a physician, but be- 
longing, I believe, to the legal profession, thought that a 
little wine would be beneficial in restoring him to his usual 
vigor and spirits. It would be rather natural for a man 
who had for years before he was converted engaged in the 
practice of law, to have given a similar prescription. Did 
Paul anywhere in his varied writings advise Timothy or any 
one else to quit preaching and go off and start him a saloon ? 
If he did I have no recollection of the passage. 

Moreover, I do not believe that there can be found in the 
Bible, either in the Old or in the New Testament, a single 
expression which endorses drunkenness or even intemperance 
in any of its forms. Neither do I believe that a solitary line 
can there be found, which indicates in the slightest degree 
that the people of any State or government may not without 
violence to the spirit or letter of God's word entirely and 
absolutely prohibit its manufacture and sale within its limits. 
One thing we must learn if we have not already learned it, 
and that is, that while the elementary principles of law as 
found in the Bible are sacred and constitute a safe basis for 
our own enlightened jurisprudence, those laws by themselves 
would fall far short of meeting the demands of the present 
advanced age of our civilization. There are hundreds and 
perhaps thousands of good, wholesome laws upon the statute 
books and in the constitutions of our own and other States, 
for which we find no sort of authority or precedent in the 
scriptures. 

"But," says Orator Puff, "did not Christ in instituting the 
Lord's supper not only authorize, but positively enjoin upon 
His followers the drinking of wine as a token of His own death 
and sufferings upon the cross ? Did He not by that, the last 
act of His life set an example to justify mankind in making 



PROHIBITION AND THE BIBLE. 227 

beasts of themselves throughout all generations ? Did He 
not thereby bequeath to posterity a legacy in the guise of a 
dispensation to get drunk, which can not be taken away by 
human authority ? Did He not in that one act lay the corner 
stone of personal liberty to drink wine and other intoxica- 
ting liquors, which can not be taken away by constitutional 
majorities. " We recur once more to the true rule of constru- 
ing a law or an action. For what purpose was the Lord's 
Supper ordained and established? What object did Christ 
have in view when He blessed the bread and the wine, and 
gave them to His disciples as a token of His broken body and 
shed blood and commanded them to take them in remem- 
brance of his death and his sufferings for the sins of the 
world? I have not time to speak at length of the manner in 
which the important events of history, both sacred and pro- 
fane, were commemorated in those early periods of time, 
when the art of printing was undreamed of, and that of writing 
was understood by none other than the priests and the 
scribes. It is unnecessary to speak at length of the custom 
of the people in the erection of monuments, in establishing 
feasts, and in setting apart days for the purpose of reminding 
themselves and their posterity of important historical events, 
which should not be forgotten. 

Christ had, almost from the beginning of His mission, used 
a beautiful figure to explain or portray to the minds of His dis- 
ciples the true relationship that existed between them and 
Himself. He compared Himself to the vine, and His disci- 
ples to the branches. "I am the vine, ye are the branches. " 
Who will say that the figure is not beautifully designed and ex- 
pressed? Who will dare say that the relation existing between 
Christ and His true disciples was not well represented by the 
vine and its branches, ever entwining themselves around the 
parent stem, intertwining with each other, and reaching out 
and clothing in verdure and beaaty the nude and unshapely 



228 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

objects of the vegetable kingdom, by which they are surroun- 
ded? The juice of the grape represented the blood and the 
life of the vine. As the branches drink of the blood of the 
vine, so the disciples, carrying out this beautiful figure, are 
commanded to drink it as a token to ever remind them of the 
sacred relationship represented by the figure. Nothing but 
the juice of the grape would have sufficed or could have been 
used without destroying the beauty of this figure of speech, so 
aptly representing the true relationship existing between Christ 
and His disciples; "the vine and its branches." They could 
not take this appropriate emblem without recalling the figure 
representing the sacred and important relationship. 

I trust that this is sufficient to satisfy such of my readers 
as may have been led by demagogues into the erroneous belief, 
that Christ chose the wine as the representative of His shed 
blood, for the purpose of putting the stamp of His approbation 
upon the indiscriminate and excessive use of intoxicating 
liquors. Such a construction, if allowed to be placed upon 
the actions of Christ would lead mankind, whom He came to 
redeem from the curse of sin, into a state of moral depravity- 
more loathsome and at war with His own teachings, than any 
example or precedent ever set or established by the great 
author of the whole catalogue of evils known to sin-cursed 
humanity. Again, I say that such a charge is unjust to Christ; 
sacrilegious and blasphemous in its character and overwhelm- 
ingly demoralizing in its tendency. 

The teachings of the good Book can not be at war with the 
best interests of mankind. They cannot be subversive of 
good morals. If they should appear to establish such an in- 
consistency the fault must necessarily be in the feeble and 
perverted understanding of the finite mind, struggling to com- 
prehend a subject beyond its limited capacity. While it may 
be impossible for the human mind ever to fully understand, 



PROHIBITION AND THE BIELE. 



harmonize and thoroughly appreciate all of the grand and 
glorious truths contained in the Bible, if unfettered by preju- 
dice, scepticism and infidility, it must conclude that its teach- 
ings are ever consistent with good morals. A contrary view 
would overturn, utterly destroy its influence for good. 



CHAPTER XIII. 



PROHIBITION AND NATURAL LAW. 



A strictly systematic and logical arrangement of this book 
would have placed this chapter at the opening, instead of the 
conclusion of the argument. Rather by accident than other- 
wise it falls into line as one of the last chapters of the book. 
It is usually supposed and asserted and that too, by persons 
of a high order of intelligence, that all human laws have their 
foundation in the Bible, and this idea has become so gener- 
ally prevalent, especially among the christian people of the 
country, that it is with some degree of hesitation that I pro- 
ceed with an argument that has long since led me to a differ- 
ent conclusion. And in saying this I desire it understood 
that I do not mean to detract in the least from the authority 
of that book, nor the importance of the truths it contains. I 
would rather reverse the popular notion and say that the rules 
of human conduct which are contained in that book are de- 
rived from a law that antedates not only the Bible but all 
authentic profane history. It goes far beyond Moses, far be- 
yond Abraham, far beyond the flood. The Mosaic code was 
written, I believe, about fifteen hundred years before Christ, 
the principles upon which that law was founded, were laid 
down at the creation of the material universe. Nothing, 
either animate or inanimate, nothing belonging to either of 
the three kingdoms of organized existence has ever been 
created and placed in this universe without the simultaneous 
enactment of a law by competent authority, the authority of 

(230) 



PROHIBITION AND NATURAL LAW. 23 I 

its creator by which its existence and the peculiar work it is 
to perform in the unerring economy of nature, are to be 
governed. 

The simplest and the sublimest of created entities have their 
appropriate laws; the stars which sang together in the morn- 
ing of the creation, "The fountains of the great deep," as well 
as the tiniest, tenderest blade of grass which waves and flits 
in the breeze, each and all have inexorable laws for the govern- 
ment of their existence and their movement however grand, 
however simple they may seem to the human understanding. 

The world could possibly exist in some condition without 
the Bible; mankind might perhaps be able to maintain his ex- 
istence upon earth without the aid of the wonderful revela- 
tions which it contains, but it is impossible for this finite mind 
to conceive for a moment that the material universe could be 
kept together without natural laws, the will of God indelibly 
written upon the tables of his own handiwork. How it is, and 
what it is, when it originated, and how it operates, we do not, 
we can perhaps never know. But we are able to realize the 
existence of this law, this code of natural laws, and through 
the bare knowledge of their operation, which is unexplained 
and unexplainable, so far as the human mind is concerned, we 
are able to succeed in providing for some of our wants and 
necessities, and in the preservation of our lives. By this 
knowledge, which we do not know how to appreciate as we 
should, we are able to plant our crops in due season, and to 
calculate with reasonable certainty upon the harvest. It is 
the purpose of revelation through whatever instrumentality it 
may come; it was the purpose of Moses and the prophets, and 
of all of the inspired writers of the New Testament to make 
known to man such of these laws which are themselves eter- 
nal and unchangeable as may not be easily discerned from the 
operations of nature itself. 

Such should be the object of all written law, whether hu- 



232 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

man or divine. Such is the invariable object, purpose, and 
effect of every divine law; not always the object and results 
of human legislation and its authoritative construction. 

But to discourse further upon natural law generally could 
add nothing to the purpose for which this chapter is being 
written. The above will serve as a major premise of the 
argument before me. I could not hope to reach the conclu- 
sion in view without saying thus much in a general way upon 
the subject of natural law. No elaborate argument is neces- 
sary to establish the proposition that man is subject to this 
law of all nature. Many of the requirements of this perfect 
law of his being he has already learned, others he has not 
learned after centuries of patient and persevering study and 
application; and still others, it seems, that he has studiously 
endeavored to keep himself from learning in the very pres- 
ence of the infliction of their direful and disastrous penal- 
ties. The law of his nature which demands that he shall be 
temperate in all things," he refuses to understand and if acci- 
dentally found out, he persistently refuses to obey it. He 
does not have to search the Bible or human statutes and de- 
cisions to find out that he ought to be temperate in all things: 
the law of his own personal being is constantly reminding 
him of his willful or unintentional violations of this law. 

And before going further with the argument I desire to 
examine into the true import of this word "temperance" as 
used by St. Paul and other inspired writers of the old and 
New Testament scriptures. I also desire to speak of the prob- 

phrase "temperate in all things." 

It is sometimes supposed that the words " all things " 
embrace all sorts of things that can be enjoyed without ref- 
erence to their moral character or tendency. That is to say, 
that a man is thereby authorized to do any "thing" the mind 
can conceive of, provided he does it in moderation. That 
view of the import of those words would soon lead us to as- 



PROHIBITION AND NATURAL LAW. 233 

sume that a man may not only get temperately drunk, but to 
engage in stealing, arson, burglary, profanity, and every con- 
ceivable violation of the laws of society or common decency, 
provided he does them in moderation. In other words he 
may with impunity do a little moderate or temperate stealing, 
swearing or housebreaking. The absurdity is too plain to re- 
quire further notice. The passage must mean that a man 
must be temperate in all good things — the bad things he must 
let entirely alone if he desires to do right in the sight of God, 
and in the estimation of his fellow-man. 

But going back to the argument, I have to say that there is 
one thing we all know without the aid of biblical inspiration, 
and that is that if we eat too much, even of such food as is spe- 
cially adapted to our physical necessities, we suffer the pen- 
alty. We are thereby informed in a manner not to be mis- 
taken that we have violated a law of our being, which is 
benignly intended as a warning not to do so again. If we are 
wise and if we have proper self-control, we will certainly heed 
these timely warnings and in the future govern ourselves ac- 
cordingly ; otherwise we will go on heedlessly eating to ex- 
cess until struck down by the penalty of outraged natural law. 
When found to be incorrigible our Master cuts us down as 
the barren fig-tree. 

In such instances we violate two natural laws, one of whose 
penalties is invariably visited upon our physical constitution; 
the other may operate upon our conscience. The results of 
the latter may, however, under ordinary circumstances never 
be perceivably felt and realized by the transgressor, but it 
may be dissipated throughout. God does not create any 
thing in vain. He causes the earth to produce a sufficiency 
of food, and if we could only come to a true understanding 
of the world's necessities, my impression from the idea I have 
of the divine economy, is, that there is not any too much, 



234 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 



although it may be quite unequally distributed.* Suppose 
now that every man who has an abundance of such things 
should be a gormandizer and a glutton? Suppose he should 
at every meal eat two or three times as much as is necessary 
for his health and his subsistence; would there not in all 
probability be a scarcity of provisions and some people be 
forced to go hungry ? Now, if there is no such natural law 
in addition to the one which operates on the individual him- 
self, then he may eat to his own physical destruction and no 
one has any right to complain. Not even would the God who 
made him and provided him and the world with the means of 
subsistence have any cause to interpose a further objection 
than is manifested through the medium of a sick stomach. 
If one man can do this without violating this supposed law 
of his nature, then every other man who is able to afford it 
can do the same thing, and at least half of the world would 
have to go on half rations and some, no doubt, die of starva- 
tion. 

But to proceed to the discussion of the relation between 
the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors and the 
rights, privileges, and immunities of our natural law. I have 
already assumed or admitted that alcohol, in at least some of 
its forms, may be beneficial in the various arts which are use- 
ful, and that it is sometimes necessary as a medicine, just as 
other dangerously poisonous compounds are essential in the 
treatment of bodily diseases. It may possibly be good for 
the headache, backache, snake-bites, bad colds, influenza, 
and consumption for aught that I know, and if so, it would 
probably be the duty of a competent physician to administer 
it in small quantities, (never by the quart or gallon) in some 



*This view is suggestive without reference to the Malthusian Theory of 
the relation between population and subsistence which Henry George assails 
in his "Progress and Poverty." 



PROHIBITION AND NATURAL LAW. 235 

cases. But while this may be true the converse is equally 
true, that it should not be administered in any case when the 
patient is afflicted with the very best of physical health. If it 
should be, then by reason of what natural law ? For what pur- 
pose ought it to be taken or administered ? Does it nourish 
and strengthen the body ? Does it add to its tissues ? Does it, 
in any way whatever, add vigor to the brain or the nervous 
•system ? What possible good can it accomplish ? I pause 
here for a reply. If it should be determined by the intelligent 
reader that it does no good whatever, the conclusion neces- 
sarily follows that it does harm. The human system nat- 
urally rebels at all foreign substances. You may as well hope 
to stick a thorn in your flesh and let it remain there without 
pain or uneasiness as to inject into your stomach a liquid not 
adapted in some way to its necessities or requirements. 

Nature will not allow any loafers in her workshop. Those 
who venture to go there must work even though they should 
do no better than to break some of the wheels of the intricate 
machinery or even tear down the shop. It must be conceded 
by every fair-minded man that whisky is quite active and 
energetic in his work. He is of strong force of character. 
Indeed he is invariably "independent in all things and neu- 
tral in nothing.'' He was never known to lie idle even in a 
weak stomach very long at a time. He rushes at once to the 
office of the head-clerk or manager of the human system, 
turns him out of doors, seizes upon the passions, inflames 
them to their utmost tension and fury, and of the peaceable 
harmless machine that it was he makes a mighty engine of 
death and destruction. Do you think for a moment that 
whisky is neutral ? That his influence upon the human sys- 
tem, except as is manifested through the abnormal activity of 
the brain, is neither good nor bad? If you answer that the 
influence is for good, I demand that you tell me in what re- 
spect and further that you prove your assertion by appropriate 



236 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

demonstration or experimental truth. If you answer that the 
influence or effect of whisky or other form of alcoholic stimu- 
lants upon the human system is bad then why not discourage 
its use, if for no other reason than for the sake of your love 
for humanity ? When it is admitted by the opposition that 
the physical results of drunkenness are bad, then have I not 
established the proposition that drunkenness is in violation 
of natural law ? There can be no conflict between natural 
law and natural right. 

If no natural right is invaded by the prohibition of the man- 
ufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, etc., then what ob- 
jection can be urged to the measure on that account, as is so 
often attempted? But they are now ready to say that prohibi- 
tion undertakes to prohibit a man from killing himself which 
is one of those rights that we read about as havingbeen guar- 
anteed to us by the constitution of our revolutionary fathers, 
who fought, bled and died,to secure to their progeny the God- 
given right to commit suicide. 

It is earnestly contended that if the State, or a majority of 
its peole, can interfere with a man's right to purchase whisky 
or his facilities for obtaining it, can, upon the same principle^ 
interfere with his right to buy and eat bread or any other ar- 
ticle of food. The falsity of the reasoning is in this, as has 
been already stated that the inordinate consumption of such 
food, though it be a mild stimulant, like coffee, however inju- 
rious its excessive use may be to the system, in no way de- 
prives a man of the right use of his mental faculties, nor has 
it ever been known to make a man vicious in his disposition 
or dangerous to society. The use of intoxicating liquors is 
followed by all of these effects. It is wholly unnecessary to 
speak of these terrible effects and their consequences. I could 
not hope to do justice to the subject. If a State has a right 
to punish crime, upon what reason or principle shall it be de- 
prived of the right to prevent its commission? The mainob- 



PROHIBITION AND NATURAL LAW. 237 

ject of the punishment of offenses is to prevent their recur- 
rence, and as is supposed by some, to execute vengeance upon 
the transgressor, however flagrant and heinous his crime. 

It is supposed that the example thus set before the people 
will necessarily have the effect to deter others who are 
viciously disposed from the commission of crime. However 
much some individuals may enjoy the influence of the penal- 
ties of the law upon their enemies, the great commonwealth 
does not share in the clamor for revenge. If the main object 
of the infliction of pains and penalties upon violators of the 
law to prevent the commission of crime, why can not the 
State make an effort to accomplish this same result without 
the shedding of blood ? Besides, the punishment of the guilty 
can not blot out the consequences of the act ; can not restore 
the life of the murdered victims; can not bring back to its 
owner the property destroyed by the torch of the drunken in- 
cendiary. It is folly to contend that the State has no interest 
whatever in the lives and happiness of its citizens. For the 
preservation and protection of these, the substantial elements 
of a State's own wealth and greatness, government is estab- 
lished and maintained. If not for these and other purposes 
having in view the promotion of the welfare and happiness of 
the people at large, then I would like very much to know 
what they are for. 

If it is conceded that such are the true objects of govern- 
ments and that it is right or expedient to have a government 
at all, then by what kind of logic can we escape the conclu- 
sion that the State has the natural right to use its authority 
and every legitimate measure to enforce it for the accom- 
plishment of the objects of its existence ? If the commission 
of crime is in the least wise detrimental to the best interests 
of society and destruction of the happiness of the people has 
not the State the right according to every principle of natural 
law and natural justice to prevent or suppress it ? 



238 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

Let the shining lights of the anti-prohibitionists of Texas 
answer this question. If they fail to do it to the satisfaction 
of the intelligent voters of the State, then let them forever 
hereafter hold their peace. If they should deny to the State 
the right to prevent crime by the timely removal of the cause 
or at least some of the most prolific causes of crime, then let 
them explain why the denial of such right should be limited 
in its application to the proposed effort of the State to sup- 
press the infamous liquor traffic, the recognized hot bed of 
crime and social disorder ? If the principle is to be applied 
to the effort of the State or its people to abate this nuisance, 
to pluck out by the roots this great moral cancer which is 
feeding upon the best interests of the State converting so 
many of its people into drunkards, paupers, and criminals, 
then let it apply to them all. Let it be said that the State of 
Texas has no right whatever to interfere with the personal 
liberty of its most wayward and God-forgetting citizen to 
commit any crime he may choose from the whole catalogue 
of offenses embraced in the penal code of the State. 

But to return once more to a consideration of the natural 
law as involved in this great controversy. Let us consider 
the supposed natural right a man has to manufacture intoxi- 
cating liquors. As stated a few pages back, God has only 
provided a sufficiency of food for his people. No more and 
no less, and if ways and means could be devised and carried 
into effect by man for the proper distribution of the same, it 
would doubtless be found that there would not be any to much. 
The great trouble has ever been in effecting such distribution. 

So many people are poor and unable to purchase, the rich 
are generally too selfish to send out much of their surplus on 
considerations of charity. The conversion of so much 
healthful food for which so many of the poor people of the 
country are clamoring into a commodity not possessing, so 
far as I have been able to find out, a solitary element of nu- 



PROHIBITION AND NATURAL LAW. 239 

trition, does not seem to me to be in accord with the economy 
of nature and hence a violation of natural law. This leads 
me to a casual consideration of the process by which this 
unfortunate transformation is accomplished. 

It is known that whisky is made by a process of distilla- 
tion, or evaporation and condensation followed by what is 
termed a rectifying process by which the essence or spirit of 
a substance is extracted. This substance may be corn, rye, 
barley, sugar cane, and perhaps a great many others. Before 
the distilling process can properly begin it is necessary to 
produce an incipient stage of decomposition, or we may say, 
putrefaction. The substance is put into a form and condition 
most favorable for spoiling. After being ground up and 
mixed with water it is kept heated in a degree most favorable 
for the invasion of that implacable enemy of all organic mat- 
ter called ferment, which eats into, sours, and destroys every 
nutritious and life-sustaining property that may be contained 
in such organic substance. When sufficiently rotten and 
soured by fermentation it is condensed by heat into vapor, 
then condensed and re-condensed into a worm "that biteth 
like a serpent and stingeth like an adder." 

By what law of nature does man justify the conversion of 
so much of the food God has provided for a noble purpose 
into an insidious poison, which, being taken into the system, 
makes the poor poorer, and reduces the rich and self-sustain- 
ing to the condition of beggary? I desire it understood, how- 
ever, that this latter suggestion is not intended to weigh much 
in the argument against whisky, and in favor of the legal pro- 
hibition of its sale and manufacture. I verily believe that the 
transformation of so much nutritious food which could be 
used in the relief of the starving poor through this artificial 
rotting process is in itself a violation of natural law. But 
whether this view should hold good or not in the estimation 
of my readers who are making an honest search for the truth, 



240 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

its unrestricted manufacture and sale is in direct violation of 
that general principle of law which underlies the organic 
structure of all government, the general welfare of the people, 
"the supreme law of the land." I close this chapter by a re- 
currence to the motto I have adopted expressive of the lead- 
ing principles contended for throughout the preceding pages 
of this work: "Salus populi suprema lex," the welfare of the 
people is the highest law. The n?xt and last chapter will be 
devoted to the press, whose power and influence can not be 
overlooked in the discussion of so great a question as the one 
I have been considering. 



CHAPTER XIV. 



PROHIBITION AND THE PRESS. 

THE DAILY AND WEEKLY PAPERS — ANTI-PROHIBITION SPEAKERS 
AND LEADERS — CHEERING WORDS TO THE TEMPERANCE 
WORKERS, ETC. 

I can not conclude this work without some reference to 
the power of the press, the general tone of which must neces- 
sarily exert a large and far-reaching influence not only upon 
the results of the canvass which is now agitating the minds of 
our people, but upon the great revolution which is rolling on 
towards the ultimate destruction of the liquor traffic in the 
land. The influence of the press, for good or for evil, is en- 
tirely beyond estimate ; beyond the capacity of the human 
mind to conceive. I am not vain enough to attempt even a 
feeble portrayal of the majesty of its power in leading and 
directing the minds and the hearts of the people. Those 
who do not read the papers, are led by those who do read 
them, and they in turn are to a great extent influenced in 
their opinions by what they gather from their readers. This 
is indeed an age of newspapers. Time with a large class of 
our intelligent reading people is too precious to devote to the 
perusal of books. They read the daily and weekly papers 
and from them gather almost exclusively their practical ideas 
of life and its current affairs. The fewest number have time 
to study the classics or to pour over the old musty volumes 
of scientific lore or political economy. They read as they 
run, and run as they read, often without much thought as to 

(241) 



242 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

the character of their reading. Many there are who take 
every thing they see in print for the truth. They accept as 
the best article of logic the very flimsiest specimens of moral, 
social, and political sophistry. 

They do not take time to hunt down the fallacy even 
though it should establish a proposition in direct conflict 
with their own individual experience and observation. In- 
deed, they swallow it all, good, bad, or indifferent. It is this 
tendency of the present fast age to accept as the truth every 
assumption indulged in by the biased mind of the newspaper 
editor or writer, that gives to the press the great power it is 
known to possess. The grandest truths ever spoken, if con- 
veyed only through the medium of unwritten language can 
exert but a limited influence as it reaches the understandings 
of but few. The most palpable falsehood when scattered 
abroad through the columns of the press may influence thou- 
sands to their detriment, possibly leading to their ultimate 
ruin. This is why the sayings of an editor however insignifi- 
cant and unreliable he may be in his general character, are 
of more importance in the estimation of the public than 
those of any other, though he be as wise as was Solon or 
Solomon. What a man says "with his mouth" soon perishes; 
what he says with his paper is treasured up and may live for 
ages whether it be a truth or a falsehood. What a man says 
expends itself upon his immediate hearers; what he writes for 
the press may echo and re-echo throughout all the intellectual 
universe, and through all time, and its influence for good or 
for bad may reach into eternity, I speak of this to show why 
it is that these newspaper men have so much power and in- 
fluence in moulding public sentiment. Indeed, no great 
principle can be promulgated among the people without the 
aid of the press. 

We cannot now understand how many kind ever made any 
perceptible advancement in civilization before the art of 



PROHIBITION AND THE PRESS. 243 

printing was invented. The progress of the arts and sciences 
and the knowledge of the principles of human government 
must have been slow. We may wonder how there could have 
been any progress at all. But be that as it may, we now real- 
ize that the art of printing has not only been invented, but 
that it has become a mighty engine of power. It is an instru- 
mentality that ought to be used in the service of every right- 
eous cause, in the establishment of every correct principle of 
government and of every popular movement having in view 
the promotion of the public good. It is a power that the 
prohibitionists of Texas ought not to ignore. Every legiti- 
mate effort ought to be made, every instrumentality not in 
conflict with right, ought to be brought to bear to secure the 
co-operation of the press in the accomplishment of the pur- 
poses and the objects in view. It is folly to denounce the 
country press as venal and corrupt. 

It does no good whatever; besides, it does harm ; it makes 
matters worse ; it does not in the least keep people from read- 
ing the editorial columns of their local papers and believing 
every word they may say, however absurd it may be when 
logically dissected. Every bad word that you may say against 
a newspaper or its editor, however infamous he may be, only 
brings him into notice, advertises his paper, and increases its 
circulation. Hence, it adds proportionally to its influence on 
the opposite side. I do not mean by this however that we 
must not repudiate their absurdities, but that in our treatment 
of the fallacies contained in their arguments we ought to be 
temperate; we ought not to deal in meaningless personalities. 

We ought to address what we have to say to the proposition 
falsely assumed, and not to the man or to the instrumentality 
through which he expressses himself. If the devil should 
speak the truth, we ought not to reject it. If our best friend 
on earth should give expression to a falsehood, either inten- 
tionally or ignorantly, we ought not to accept it because of 



244 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION.^ 

our respect and good feeling for the one who originates or 
propagates the false statement. 

Having said this much, I shall proceed more directly to the 
discussion of the true relation of the press to the people. A 
failure to understand this relationship and to appreciate the 
great difficulties encountered by the country press in dealing 
with great, or even unimportant issues which come up for at- 
tention, causes almost, if not all, of the dissatisfaction that is 
so often and generally expressed by the people at the failure 
of the newspapers to speak out boldly and unreservedly upon 
all of such questions, and always to be found on the right side 
of the controversy. In the very nature of things, a newspa- 
per can not be on both sides of a question at the same time 
without assuming a very awkward and unsatisfactury attitude 
in the eyes of the public. One side may be right, both can 
not be, while it is quite possible for both to be wrong. While 
every public journal, as well as every private citizen, ought to 
speak out boldly or fearlessly when public duty or obligation 
demands such expression, both ought to remain silent under 
all other circumstances. No one ought to shrink from the 
discharge of a duty when it is recognized to be such. The 
decision which he must make for himself of the question 
whether there is any such duty or obligation to the public as 
requires a public expression must necessarily depend upon 
ctrcumstances. While at one time, and under certain cir- 
cumstances, a man would decide in the affirmative, there may 
be other times and other circumstances surrounding the case 
which would require a different decision. 

The good book tells us that " He who provideth not for his 
own household has denied the faith and is worse than an in- 
fidel. " This may seem to some strange doctrine, yet we can 
not reject it without irreverance for the teachings of that holy 
book. If it mean anything, it means that no man is justified 
in neglecting the imperative wants and necessities of his fam- 



PROHIBITION AND THE PRESS. 245 

ily without a better excuse than that he feels it to be a higher 
duty to provide for the public at large than for those whom 
God has specially entrusted to his care. Suppose we have a 
poor journalist, and we do not have to go far to find an actual 
bona fide example, who has been brought up to that profession 
and that he knows no other by which he can eke out a bare 
support for his family who are daily depending upon him ? 
Each day of his life he brings home the scanty proceeds of 
his toil, which is barely sufficient to procure bread and rai- 
ment for his wife and little ones ? An exciting local contro- 
versy springs up, and his patrons come to daggers points with 
each other. It may be a question in some degree, however 
great, affecting the material interests of his town, precinct, or 
county. Take a local election for instance, with two popular 
candidates in the field for the same office. The poor pub- 
lisher may feel that it would be to the interest of all of 
his patrons that his favorite should be elected and he may 
further be of the opinion that the election of the other would 
be quite detrimental to the public welfare. If he espouse 
the cause of his favorite and advocate his election through 
the columns of his paper, the friends of the other are certain 
to withdraw their patronage from his paper. His family can 
not subsist without it. He is now called upon to 
make the choice to either be silent upon the subject in so far 
as the columns of his papers are concerned, or remit the care 
and support of his household to the cold charity of an un- 
friendly world. Now, which course ought he to pursue in view 
of the position and unmistakable teachings of holy writ as 
above quoted ? 

There are times in every one of our lives when silence is 
not only excusable, but a posttive virtue, and that, too, when 
the very impulses of our nature would lead us to rebuke what 
we conceive to be error and folly. The aphorism that "all 
truths should not be told at all times," applies with peculiar 



246 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

force to the press. The laws themselves would not permit 
such a thing. No newspaper can lawfully publish the truth 
when it is destructive of private character unless such truth 
is a matter in which the public is in some way interested or 
concerned. But while I am a great advocate of silence under 
severely trying circumstances and surroundings, I shall not 
go so far as to say that the same circumstances or surround- 
ings would justify the promulgation of a falsehood or the 
perpetration of a wrong, that any consideration ought to pre- 
vail with a journalist to traffic in his editorial columns. 
While such commercial transactions can not be punished as 
bribery, it sustains nearly the same relation to bribery as 
false swearing does to perjury. It is morally and socially 
wrong, and ought to be condemned by that portion of the 
press of the country which has not suffered such pollution. 
The idea of influencing a man's opinion with gold is an ab- 
surdity. Opinions are not made from such stuff, and the ex- 
pression of such spurious opinion through the columns of the 
press or any other medium of communication is a cheat and 
a counterfeit and the very essence of the worst kind of hy- 
pocrisy. 

But there is another class of newspapers that I desire to 
discuss, and that is the great money-making institutions 
known as the dailies, which are usually published by corpo- 
rate capital. A dozen or perhaps a hundred or more indi- 
viduals living in different sections of the country, and each 
perhaps of his own peculiar views upon leading political 
questions, organize themselves into a corporation for the pur- 
pose of establishing and maintaining a great daily paper in 
some favorable locality. 

The stock is divided out and put upon the market just as 
is the case in other enterprises of a similar character. Offi- 
cers and directors are elected from among the incorporators; 
editors, reporters, and business managers are employed, and 



PROHIBITION AND THE PRESS. 247 

it is not to be expected otherwise than that such officers should 
strive to make the enterprise a financial success. If they do 
not, they are very apt to be relieved of their positions at the 
very earliest, practicable moment. The exclusive object of 
the original investment may not be to coin money but the 
stock soon shifts around and gets into the hands of those who 
are disposed to make every dollar in sight out of their invest- 
ment. The advice to the editor and manager will generally, 
if not invariably, be similar to that of the old man to his son 
-when he started him out into the world: "My son, my advice 
to you is to make money; make it honestly if you can, but, 
my son, — make money," The editor and all of his assist- 
ants are impersonals. Their names do not appear at the head 
of any of the columns of such papers. The truth seems to 
be that the paper is edited by everybody in general and no 
body in particular; and as a corporation is notorious for having 
? no soul and no responsibility can be fixed upon any one con- 
nected with the enterprise for the unconscionable falsehoods 
it may choose to promulgate: "for revenue only," 

The whole concern is operated on a blind tiger system by 
which an uninterrupted tissue of falsehoods and absurdities 
.are rolled out upon the public, and nobody is able to find out 
who operates the internal machinery. Great corporations 
make very poor martyrs. When you start out to look for a 
victim to be immolated upon the altar of an unpopular move- 
ment, however righteous it may be when fully understood and 
appreciated, you need not fool away your time with "soulless 
corporations." They have no suicidal inclinations whatever, 
>nor have they any principles upon which they are inclined to 
^sacrifice their material interests, or for the maintenance of 
which they are likely to hazzard any portion of their annual 
^dividends. With all due respect to such papers, and they are 
indispensable in the transmission and distribution of the cur- 
rent news, for which they have every facility, I am constrained 



248 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

to make the suggestion that their editorial columns ought to 
be abolished by law. It may be put down as a practical cer- 
tainty that as long as they have editorial space it will be at 
the service of the highest bidder, and no body is responsible 
for the moral depravity of the bargain. But before passing 
from this branch of the subject I desire to say that these seem- 
ing reflections upon the integrity of that portion of the daily 
press as is conducted by corporations has no reference to any 
particular paper, much less to any individual connected with 
its management. How could I reflect upon the character and 
personal integrity of the man who manipulates the "blind ti- 
ger" in the unlawful dispensation of the elements of death and 
social depravity unless I could know "judicially" or other- 
wise who the manipulator is? How could I reflect upon the 
personal honor and unimpeachable veracity of the man who 
writes lies and false arguments for a daily paper when I have 
not the least idea who that propagator of falsehoood and 
error is? 

What I have said is intended to have general application. 
It is intended to take in every "corporation daily" in the 
United States and Canada. In their capacity as a medium 
for the dissemination of news and general intelligence they 
are indespensible to the welfare and progress of society. As 
moulders and leaders of public opinion they are totally unre- 
liable, and the masses of the people ought to know better 
than to accept their mercenaryopinions, if opinions they can 
be called. 

But while this is the case with the editorial columns of that 
particular class of newspapers, it is not so with the great body 
of the country press. Nearly all of these papers are published 
by individual capital and labor. The average country editor 
is not only his own publisher, but his own compositor and 
his own "printer's devil." The responsibility of every depart- 
ment of the weekly paper of the country usually devolves 



PROHIBITION AND THE PRESS. 249 

upon a single person, who has no one to share with him 
the great volume of abuse and other incidental vexations of 
personal 'journalism. If the mechanical department does not 
come up to the standard he is denounced as a botch work- 
man; if the local and general news items are sparse and of 
no interest; if the editorials are not sufficiently equivocal 
and uncertain to cover all sides of the question, he is cursed 
and bemeaned as a traitor to his country and the best inter- 
ests of society. Truly the way of the average country editor 
and publisher is hard and especially so if he is not financially 
above the whims of his patrons, which is rarely the case. I 
have been a country editor myself and am prepared to speak 
from experience as well as from observation. There are many 
things that come up within the sphere of the circulation of 
his paper which circumstances prevent him from ventilating 
through its columns, although they would gratify a spirit of 
animosity and revenge in a large class of his readers, and 
who think he ought to notice them specially for their own 
personal benefit and satisfaction. He is constantly between 
two fires, and there is no safe way to escape. 

When editing a paper at one time I conceived it to be my 
duty as the friend of a certain candidate for office, to show 
up the political waywardness and inconsistency of some of his 
opponents, and ,upon the advice of my colleague I wrote a 
whole column of personal history which had been furnished 
me, as I thought, by unquestionably reliable authority. The 
same day of the publication of the issue containing this scrap 
of history so interesting to those who were on my own side of 
the question, the party to whom it referred demanded an im- 
mediate personal interview. It so happened that I was in no 
particular mood for personal interviews at the time. How- 
ever anxious I may have been at other times to be interviewed 
by parties desiring my political opinions for the benefit of the 
public, this was one of the times when I wished especially to 



250 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

be left alone " in the solitude of my own originality." But it 
was not for me to escape the proposed interview. Fortunately 
the difficulty was settled without a resort to the established 
code of honor, and I managed to come out alive and without 
any serious damage to the reputation of myself or my paper. 
It taught me a valuable lesson, and from that time till this 
good hour I have had an aversion to the publication of scraps 
of personal history, especially when I was to be the historian 
or responsible for its results. 

During my brief and, as some say, brilliant career as an ed- 
itor and publisher, I had occasion at one time to pay a very 
high compliment to the beauty and intelligence of a certain 
popular young lady, "without disparagement to others," of 
course. The next day I was waited on by a committee of 
those others for whom no disparagement was intended, and an 
immediate personal interview with the editor was imperatively 
demanded. Unfortunately the editor was in. Up to that time 
I had been vain enough to suppose that I had more courage 
than an average lion. I imagined that I could face cannon 
balls without the least trepidation. The idea of being scared 
by anything in the guise of humanity had never entered my 
imagination. In this I found that I was sadly mistaken. Suf- 
fice it to say that I was "weighed in the balance and found 
wanting." I surrendered at discretion. I was undone. I 
stood "speechless" in the awful presence before me. Indeed, 
I had nothing to say — nothing at all. I was thoroughly inter- 
viewed, and my readers "needn't to doubt it." I can not re- 
peat what was said, but I can say one thing, and that is that 
ever afterwards during my journalistic experience I was mind- 
ful of the use I made of even as seemingly harmless a thing 
as a personal compliment. These were not all the difficulties 
I encountered, bat these are sufficient to illustrate the point I 
am attempting to make, and that is the impossibility of an ed- 
itor pursuing in the editorial management of his paper a thor- 



PROHIBITION AND THE PRESS. 25 I 

oughly independent course in all matters, even though the 
principle or interests involved should be of the most trivial 
and insignificant character. 

No man need to enter the profession of a journalist with 
the expectation of succeeding in accumulating money, or of 
even preserving intact his own personal safety and at the 
same time totally ignore the prejudices, and weaknesses com- 
mon to humanity. It may be that it ought not to be thus, 
but human nature is an impoitant factor to be considered in 
every undertaking, and we can not shut our eyes to its foibles. 
Whoever attempts to ignore them in making his calculations 
for the present and the future is not wise. Whoever attempts 
it will certainly fail in his undertakings. 

Having said this much in regard to the difficulties in the 
way of independent journalism, I desire now to apply the 
principle, I have thus attempted to evolve, to the press and 
its relation to the question of prohibition. In every county, 
in every town, in every precinct of the State there are two 
classes of people; one class in favor of prohibitory laws, the 
other opposed to such legislation. In most of these subdi- 
visions they are nearly all about equal in number and influ- 
ence; especially is this true in the towns and cities. To 
these towns and cities the most refined and the roughest ele- 
ments of our society seem naturally to gravitate; the medium 
classes usually prefer to remain in the country. These two 
elements are naturally antagonistic to each other. In many 
places, especially the smaller towns of the State, it requires 
the co-operation of both classes to build up and sustain their 
public enterprises. 

But few country weeklies can live in the smaller towns 
without the liberal patronage of both, supplemented by the 
patronage of the intermediates and transients. The result is, 
that those papers whose very existence depends on the com- 
bined patronage of both elements of society are naturally 



252 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

slow to antagonize either. They may not be in sympathy 
with the whisky; traffic. Their editors and publishers may be, 
and generally are individually in favor of moral and social 
improvement, and of the suppression of this prolific cause of 
social disorder; but they hesitate to take a course which they 
know will result in the early suspension of their business and 
the deprivation of their families of the ordinary necessities 
of life. They are not to be abused for such hesitation. The 
question now pertinently suggests itself, what ought to be 
done ? What ought the poor dependent editor and publisher 
to do in such cases ? What ought the people who favor pro- 
hibition to do to help him out of the inevitable dilemma ? 
This last is the practical question for us to consider, and I 
shall address myself fearlessly to its discussion. If there is 
such a case as the one above stated in your town or city; if 
there is a newspaper proprietor in your place who is hesita- 
ting on account of these forcible considerations to enter the 
campaign against liquor with his paper, when his heart is in 
the right place and in sympathy with the cause, then let me 
call upon the friends of State prohibition to share liberally 
with him the pecuniary losses he must inevitably sustain by 
reason of his espousal of the cause of prohibition. 

Don't understand me to suggest or intimate that you should 
attempt to influence his opinion with money, but let me ask 
you to increase your own patronage to an amount at least 
equal to that which he may lose "for righteousness' sake." 
You will find any number of them who are now neutral, that 
would come out boldly on the right side of the question and 
that, too, without violence to their preconceived opinions on 
the subject if they could only be assured that they will be 
supported in the glorious work. Those who run newspapers 
must live just as other people must live, upon the proceeds of 
their labor. It requires no small amount of money to keep 
on foot a very insignificant paper, and as much as I would de- 



PROHIBITION AND THE PRESS. 253 

light to see every member of the press on my side of this 
question, I have not the heart to condemn those who are 
financially unable to assist in the work and maintain their in- 
dependence of the traffic and its advocates. It is one thing 
to put forth a declaration of independence \ quite another to 
maintain it, especially without the necessary war material, 
money included. Those who are naturally inclined to the 
other side of the question and to lend the columns of 
their papers to the opposition ought, if possible, to be con- 
vinced of the error of their way and brought over by argu- 
ment and persuasion to the service of a nobler cause. If they 
can not be influenced by such means to forsake their errors, 
then there is no other alternative, I suppose, than to let them 
■" go on with the procession." It will do no possible good to 
villify or abuse them. It might be very good policy to with- 
draw from them; "Let them alone; they are joined to their 
Idols." It would be more charitable to suppose that they are 
honestly mistaken than that they have been bought up by the 
liquor influence. 

It ought to be the policy of all temperance reformers to 
secure upon all legitimate terms the co-operation of the press, 
which is a great power in the land. With the solid support 
of the newspapers of Texas the amendment would carry by 
an overwhelming majority. With the press on the side of the 
opposition, there would be no hope whatever of its adoption. 
But before leaving this important branch of the subject I 
desire to speak further with reference to the great daily papers 
of the State. There is no use in wasting time with an effort 
to secure their support. Let it be everywhere known and 
understood by the people that their editorial opinions are but 
articles of legitimate commerce and are either knocked off 
to the highest bidder or let out by contract for the season. 
They are no body's opinions; they are any body's opinions 
who may be able and disposed to put up the necessary collat- 



254 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

eral at the rate of about twenty cents a line. In saying this 
I certainly mean to cast no reflection whatever upon the in- 
tegrity of the daily press generally, nor even those run by 
great corporations strictly for the money there is in it; in 
other words, "for revenue only. I do not doubt that if you 
bargain for their opinion they will carry out their contract to 
the letter. If you should contract for a column of campaign 
"buncombe," I have not the least doubt but that you would 
get a full column. If you should bargain for more buncombe, 
you would certainly get the full measure, and that the quality 
of the whole would strictly correspond w r ith the sample in 
every respect. 

They will deal honestly with you in the matter of carrying 
out their part of the contract. They will treat you like a gen- 
tleman in other respects; they will say nothing whatever about 
such commercial transactions you may have with themselves 
as are of a private character. In other words, they will not be 
likely to give you away by publishing to the world the fact 
that you had consummated the purchase. They would not 
perhaps send forth a catalogue containing the established 
prices of political opinions manufactured to order. Their hon- 
esty and their courtesy is unquestioned. It is rarely ever the 
case that they sell out to both sides of the question. A few 
have been known to do such a thing, but when it has occurred 
all of the honest ones which confined their traffic to one side 
exclusively have promptly condemned such a flagrant viola- 
tion of journalistic ethics. Lest I be misunderstood I desire 
to emphasize that they are scrupulously honest and sincere in 
everything except their opinions, which are not worth the time 
it requires to glance over their headings. They serve God 
with all the fervency of their nature; money is their God. To 
make money is their only religion. Not long ago the author 
dropped into the sanctum of one of those journalistic blind ti- 
gers. An idea had somehow struck the managing editor that I 



PROHIBITION AND THE PRESS. 255 

wanted to publish something on the subject of prohibition, al- 
though I had not made the slightest intimation upon the sub- 
ject. Just as I got my head into the doorway of this "sanc- 
tum sanctorum," as they call it, the manager squalled out, 
"Twenty cents a line, sir; good morning, etc," My reply 
was, "Not any, I thank you; good morning." This self-im- 
portant fellow, whose surname was "Aleck," and whose first 
name may be easily guessed, pounded upon me unmercifully, 
and in the course of his brief remarks he swore that prohibi- 
tion was a farce and a misnomer, and that it seemed that all 
of its advocates were crazy and even doing their best to make 
everybody else non compos mentis, and that they were suc- 
ceeding quite admirably; thatprohibition was too small a mat- 
ter for the notice of his paper, and that he would say or pub- 
lish nothing about it for less than twenty cents a line. Antic- 
ipating that I had come there to dispute with him on the sub- 
ject, he squared his chair around to the table, and as I walked 
out in disgust I thought I could hear him saying over to him- 
self, "twenty cents a line, sir, twenty cents a line." So much 
for prohibition and the press. 

This volume would perhaps not be complete without a 
passing notice of a particular class of persons known as anti- 
prohibition orators or speakers, and what I shall have to say 
of this class has no reference whatever to any particular in- 
dividual. It would add no dignity whatever to a work devo- 
ted to the discussion of general principles to contribute to 
the notoriety of individuals, not the least of whose purpose, in 
publicly espousing so bad a cause, is to make themselves no- 
torious. What other aim can they have ? How can any of 
them hope to accomplish any good for their country or to 
contribute thereby in the least to the general welfare and up- 
building of society ? What good results do they promise 
shall follow the success of the cause they are professing to 
advocate? What interest do they say can possibly suffer by 



256 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

the adoption of the constitutional amendment? How can 
society be worsted by the effort ? In what respect can it 
suffer detriment ? How can the progress of moral, intellec- 
tual, or religious advancement be hampered by the termina- 
tion of the ungodly sway of King Alcohol? The people 
whom they would beguile by their sophistry; whom they 
would mislead by the delusive phantom of personal liberty, 
have a right to demand an answer to these questions. We 
must ever judge of the correctness of a principle by its prac- 
tical results. If the practical results of the principles they 
contend for with so much hypocritical earnestness have not 
fully demonstrated the absurdity of the positions they assume, 
then expedience is a delusion; our own observation a de- 
ception. 

Is there a man in all this broad land of ours who has suffi- 
cient mental vigor and acumen to form a conception from ex- 
ternal surroundings, who will have the hardihood to say that 
the liquor traffic is a blessing, or even to deny that it is a 
curse to mankind ? If so then I shall be ready to say that the 
magnitude of falsehood is beyond all human comprehension. 
Had such an individual lived in the days of Ananias, the 
name of that distinguished prince of liars would have never 
been recorded upon the pages of history. Joseph Mulhatton 
and Baron Munchausen would be brilliant and shining ex- 
amples of human devotion to truth and veracity when 
compaired with such an individual. If the liquor traffic is 
not a blessing to mankind, then why should those pompous 
anti-prohibition advocates struggle so hard for its perpet- 
uation. If it is a curse, then why should they oppose its re- 
moval or destruction ? Why should they not rather labor to 
suppress it ? If it is not a blessing and negative in its charac- 
ter, then there is no important principle involved in the con- 
troversy. It is a positive curse as evidenced by its results ; 
then the principle upon which it is based is necessarily and 



PROHIBITION AND THE PRESS. 257 

positively wrong. A corrupt stream can not flow from a pure 
fountain, neither can a pure stream issue from a corrupt 
source. All nature teaches this truth and we can not ignore 
it, if we would. It is equally impossible for bad results to 
follow from the operation of sound principles of morality, and 
the reverse of the proposition is equally true. All of the 
bombastic and highsounding arguments can not establish the 
contrary doctrine. What logic can convince you that a cor- 
rupt and poisonous stream can issue from a pure fountain in 
the very face of your own and all human experience ? And 
are you to stultify yourself by accepting and being led away 
by a sophism that brings you to a conclusion in direct con- 
flict with your own personal experience and observation. I 
do not think so. 

There is, I believe, a school of philosophers who deny the 
existence of all material things; who contend that all objects 
we see, feel, and hear around and about us are but the creat- 
ures of our own imagination. While that may be the true 
philosophy of nature, it has never been accepted as such by 
a sufficient number of human intelligences to make a respect- 
able showing. The great mass of mankind are too fond of 
what they conceive to be the real pleasures of the world to 
turn loose their hold on reality and go off into the imaginary 
or spiritual as long as they can keep from it. The argument 
that establishes the conclusion that whisky is not an evil and 
a curse in the very presence of the facts which demonstrate 
to our own conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt the 
reverse of the reasonable proposition, necessarily leads us to 
the endorsement and acceptance of the doctrines of that 
school of advanced thinkers who deny the existence of a ma- 
terial universe. When led thus to repudiate the naked 
unvarnished truth as it appears to the mind and the conscience 
through the medium of every one of the senses, I will be 
ready to accept as the truth any thing that can be imagined. 



258 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

however inconsistent with all human wisdom and experience. 
If told that daylight and impenetrable darkness could exist 
in the same place at the same time, I would not doubt it in 
the least. Why should I doubt it ? Absurdities would cease 
to exist; physical impossibilities would become things of the 
past. 

Assuming, then, as we must, that the prevailing system of 
licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors is baneful and des- 
tructive to the best interests of society, then, what reasonable 
apology can these champions of the opposition make to the 
intelligent mind for striving to perpetuate the curse? With 
what show of consistency do they cry out, "Personal Liberty," 
when there is no personal liberty or any other sort of liberty 
for the reeling, staggering slave of a consuming thirst, the fiery 
offspring of the liquor traffic? Do they hope to make men 
free by upholding the relentless sway of the meanest and most 
despotic of tyrants? 

In the name of the good people of Texas and all other states 
which are struggling to free themselves and their children 
from this accursed tyrant; in the name of the thousands and 
millions of his miserable, dying victims who aie powerless to 
resist; in the name of the countless throng of sorrowing women 
and helpless, innocent children all over the country, I de- 
mand that these loud-mouth champions of personal liberty 
answer these questions "or forever hereafter hold their peace. " 
The idea of preaching temperance, and at the same time ad- 
vocating saloons; the idea of preaching temperance reform, 
and at the same time sowing broadcast all over the country 
the seeds of intemperance, is an inconsistency that I can not 
account for or undertake to explain. I dare say they will not 
attempt to reconcile it themselves, as none of them, so far as 
I have heard, have claimed to possess omnipotent power, if 
indeed omnipotence could accomplish the work. Preaching 
moral suasion and temperance, and establishing dens of in- 



PROHIBITION AND THE PRESS. 259 

iquity in every nook and corner of the State! Such purity of 
profession! Such delectable practice! Such delightful ab- 
surdity! Give them plenty of rope and they will soon put an 
end to themselves. No answer is demanded; they cannot pos- 
sibly formulate an argument that does not inevitably destroy 
itself according to every recognized principle of logic, The 
wise man of the Old Testament once said, "Answer a fool ac- 
cording to his folly, lest he become wise in his own conceit." 
I now come to consider briefly the duties of those faithful 
veterans of the cause and their gallant recruits who are 
marching to the field to engage this enemy of mankind in for- 
ensic discussion. Though you may feel intellectually weak 
and unable to cope with the adversary, you may go forth 
without fear. You may have a stammering tongue, but you 
have God and the right upon your side. Though your efforts 
may fall short of the full measure of their design at the first, 
they will continue to grow stronger and stronger with proper 
application to your work. Shakespeare beautifully and truth- 
fully writes : 

"Thrice is he armed who hath his quarrel just, 
And he but naked, though locked up in steel, 
Whose conscience by injustice is corrupted." 

When Christ sent His apostles out into the wide, wicked 
world He charged them among other things to "be as wise as 
serpents and as harmless as doves." No better text could be 
selected for the direction of your methods in the prosecution 
of this glorious work, Be wise as the strength of your intel- 
lect will permit; be as harmless as the least offensive of God's 
creatures. 

In a former chapter I have written at some length upon the 
folly of attempting to convince men and turn them from the 
error of their way by the use of bitter words and personal 
vituperation. Legitimate argument, supplemented by timely 
persuasion is the only way to reach them. Any other course 



260 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

excites their passions and provokes their resentment which 
will be stronger than their judgment. Be kind, be gentle, be 
at all times conservative in your speech and in your conduct. 
If you have been able to gather any available truths from the 
foregoing chapters, you are at liberty to use them without 
giving credit to the author. 

Indeed, I cannot see how any man can reasonably demand 
credit in a literary sense or otherwise for penning a truth of 
which no writer can, in the very nature of things, be the author. 
Truth is eternal. Those who act as the medium for its pro- 
mulgation soon pass away. Such truth is at a par with the 
conclusion neccessarily reached by the arguments used on the 
opposite side of this question. If what I have written is, 
after being "weighed in the balance," found to be the truth it 
belongs to the world, and I have no right to claim a monopoly 
of its use and demand that every other person who may de- 
sire to use it shall squander his valuable time in informing 
the public that he received it from me or my book. In the 
preceding pages I have attempted to call things by their 
right names. I have tried to be plain, and to make my posi- 
tions clearly and unmistakably understood. That some of 
the arguments may appear at first blush rather far-fetched 
and irrelevant, I have no doubt whatever. In formulating 
my arguments I have generally begun at the beginning, and 
from the starting point of fundamental principles I have en- 
deavored to lead the unprejudiced mind by a logical process 
to a tangible conclusion, a conclusion, that the simplest mind 
can not fail to comprehend and appreciate. In dealing with 
the arguments of the opposition I have in every instance at- 
tempted to dash them to pieces upon the rugged boulders of 
their own glaring absurdity. 

It has been my purpose to show up these ponderous absur- 
dities in a way that may be seen so clearly and distinctly by 
the honest enquirer after truth that he may be able to avoid 



PROHIBITION AND THE PRESS. 261 

the shipwreck and save himself from its terrible destruction. 
Be assured just here that the unblushing fallacies of these 
apologists of crime, these advocates of the establishment and 
perpetuation of a "shed" upon earth will in due time be 
shorn of their beauty and attractiveness, and the rottenness 
of their true character fully disclosed. Be further assured 
before it is everlastingly too late that the man who boldly at- 
tempts to palm them off upon the unskilful public will cer- 
tainly come to grief; that he will be socially immolated and 
politically damned "without the benefit of clergy," if he does 
not "repent and be baptized" into the ranks of the reformers. 
It would also be well for him to understand in this connection 
that delays are peculiarly dangerous. For one, if I know my 
own heart, I rejoice not at the downfall of any human being. 
I envy no man on the topside of this earth. So far as I 
know, there is not a man standing between me and the goal of 
my earthly ambition. There is not a man within the broad 
range of my personal acquaintance that I would not rejoice 
to see become wiser, wealthier, and better; on account of 
whose social, professional, and political success I would not 
feel gratified, if in the least degree worthy of his triumph. 
And, ah, could I but know in the future that the influence of 
this little volume has in any way contributed to the elevation 
of my race, though in a slight degree, I would feel amply re- 
paid for my study and labor without regard to the pecuniary 
fate of the venture. 

Could I but realize in anticipation that the truths I have 
herein recorded, or attempted to record, shall sink deep into 
the heart and conscience of even the humblest of my country- 
men and lead him safely to the rock of his temporal salva- 
tion, I would be happy indeed, and contented. That every 
line I have written will be put through the crucible of the se- 
verest criticism, I can but expect. That the positions I have 
assumed will be ridiculed and sneered at by those who feel 



262 PRACTICAL PROHIBITION. 

and appreciate their inability to answer and refute them. I 
am fully and entirely assured. I know that there are many in 
the world who will not be convinced; who "will believe a lie 
and be damned" when the truth would answer even their own 
selfish purposes a thousand fold better. They are "joined to 
their idols/' and there is no use to trouble them with argu- 
ment or persuasion. They are of those of whom the poet 
spoke when he said: 

"Convince a man against his will, 
And he is of the same opinion still. 

For such people this book was not written, and they are un- 
der no obligation to read it, and if they should do so through 
curiosity, or for any purpose, they are expected to criticise it, 
and the author would feel much disappointed if they did not 
do so. They are expected to ridicule and sneer at the truths 
it contains, and I promise in advance that I shall not get 
angry or complain. I here throw down the gauntlet to the 
opposition as I conclude the last chapter of my book. Let 
them take it up if they will. 



APPENDIX. 



APPENDIX. 



Synopsis of the prohibitory legislation and license laws of 
the different States, with their history and practical results, 
compiled by the author from unquestionably reliable sources.* 



MAINE. 



STATE PROHIBITION. 



Settlements began in the territory now constituting the 
state of Maine, in 1623, but politically it was a part of Massa- 
chusetts until 1820, when it became a state. Whatever legis- 
lation it had was that of Massachusetts, and the progress of 
events was similar. While Boston merchants were pushing 

*For the material contained in this synopsis I am much indebted to Rev. 
T. A. Goodwin, of Indianapolis, and his * 'Seventy-six Years' Tussel with 
the Traffic"; General S. F. Carey, Cincinnati, O.; Samuel D. Hastings, 
Madison, Wis.; H. F. Chreistberg, of S. C, in ''Hand-Book of Prohibi- 
tion"; W. H. H. Bartram, in "The Voice"; Hon. Wm. Daniel, Baltimore, 
Md., in "Hand-Book of Prohibition"; John Russell, Michigan, in id; J. 
Wofford Tucker, Florida, in id; also J. C. Greeley, of same State; R. H. 
Whi taker, [North Carolina, in "Hand Book"; Rumsey Smithson, Virginia, 
in id; Will C. King, Oregon, in id; Jno. Hipp, Colorado, in id; Hon. Neal 
Dow, of Portland, Me. ; J. S. Hoagland, North Platte, Neb. ; E. P. Augur, 
Middletown, Ct. ; Kate L. Penniman and H. B. Quick, St. Paul, Minn. 
I am also indebted to J. N. Stearnes, Sec'y Nat. Temperance Society, New 
York; E. J. Morris, Grand Scribe Sons of Temperance, Cincinnati, O. ; 
and Walter I. Crawford, G. W. C. T., of I. O. G. T., N. O., La., for 
valuable assistance rendered in the collection of materials; and to Mr. A. J. 
Jutkins, of Chicago, for copies of "The Hand-Book of Prohibition", which 
has been very serviceable to me in my work. 

(265) 



266 APPENDIX. 



the African trade, sending out rum and bringing back slaves, 
enterprising citizens of Maine were sending lumber to the 
West Indies, bringing back some Spanish dollars, and much 
molasses, which was converted into rum and drank by the 
people. Accordingly general poverty existed. Outside of 
the "merchants" (rum-sellers) there were few men of wealth ; 
general coarseness and severe brutality prevailed. Few hou- 
ses in the country towns were not ornamented with old hats 
in the place of broken panes. 

A temperence society was organized in Portland, April 24, 
18 1 2, and in Bath the same year. These proposed to dis- 
countenance drunkenness. They had no higher aim. To be 
"sparing and cautious" in the use of liquors was their effort. 
(See Liquor Problem, Pape 202.) The advance towards to- 
tal abstinence was similar to that in other portions of the 
country. The "Washingtonian" movement found a good field 
in Maine. It was a great awakening ; earnest men all over 
the land had revelations. 

Among these were Gen. James Appleton of Marblehead, 
Massachusetts, a member of the Massachusetts legislature. 
While listening to a debate upon a license bill in that body 
in 1831, he was suddenly seized with the idea that if, as ap- 
peared by the debate, the sale of liquor was so baneful to the 
public, it should not be licensed at all, but rather forbidden 
altogether. 

He advocated this doctrine in the Salem Gazette. 

In 1833 he removed to Portland, Maine. Here he advoca- 
ted prohibition, and with such ability and success that he was 
elected to the Maine legislature in 1837. He presented peti- 
tions for prohibition which he secured from his neighbors. 
These were referred to a "joint select committee," of which he 
was chairman, and his "Report" was, according to the Maine 
Temperance Advance of Feb. 12.1853, "the first announce- 



MAINE. 267 



rcient of the prohibitory principle and is the origin of the 
Maine law. 

Meantime, in the same city of Portland, there was a young 
man whose growing interest in the question was destined to 
bear rich fruit. This was Neal Dow, a whose first public ap- 
pearance as an advocate of prohibition was in 1839, when he 
appeared before the Board of Aldermen of his own city to in- 
duce them to refer the question of license or no-license to a 
vote of the citizens." He was then thirty-five, and the 
next twelve years put him into such relations to the History 
of Prohibition as to make him, though not the earliest, among 
the most conspicuous, of its advocates. He vigorously pre- 
sented the doctrine, traveling in 1846 over 4000 miles in the 
State addressing the people. The legislature that year 
was elected on that issue. A prohibitory bill passed the house 
by a vote of 81 to 42, and the senate by 23 to 5. It was ap- 
proved by Gov. Anderson, and stands as the first prohibitory 
law in a christian state. 

But it was inefnctive; penalties were light. No one knew 
what it involved to fight the liquor traffic. In 1849 'a more 
stringent bill was passed, but it was vetoed by Gov. Dana. In 
1850 Mr. Dow introduced an amended bill containing the 
""search and seizure" clauses, but it was lost by a tie vote in 
the senate. The following year Mr. Dow appeared 
with his bill perfected: it passed by a vote of 86 to 40 in the 
house, and 18 to 10 in the senate, was signed by Gov. Hub- 
bard, and became a law June 2, 185 1. Meanwhile Mr. Dow 
had been elected mayor of Portland. 

"All eyes were turned upon Maine to see if she would exe- 
cute her law. Will the mayor of portland stand firm at his 
post and do his duty, or will he shrink in fear of mobs and 
riots? He speedily announced his purpose to execute the 
law, and gave venders sixty days in which to dispose of their 
liquors and get out of the business. The mayors of other cit- 



268 APPENDIX. 



ies issued similar proclamations. On the morning of the 4th* 
of July the mayor of Bangor seized, confiscated and destroyed 
ten casks of liquor. Mr. Dow, according to promise, issued 
his search-warrant, seized about two thousand dollars worth of 
liquors, and publicly destroyed them." In other cities- 
the same promptness and energy were exhibited, great con- 
courses of people witnessing the destruction with respectful 
silence. It was demonstrated that a prohibitory law could be 
enforced. 

On the 15th of January, 1852, seven months after the enact- 
ment of the law, the Mayor of Portland sent a Message to the 
city council, in which he said: 

"The number of persons who continue to sell strong drinks^ 
in the city is now very small. They are almost all foreigners,, 
and sell with great secrecy and caution. An open rum-shop> 
or bar of any kind is entirely unknown. A barrel, keg, or 
other vessel of liquors is not to be seen in the city at all, ex- 
cept at the city agency.* The law has executed its mission 
with more ease, certainty, and dispatch than was anticipated 
by its most ardent friends — it has been most triumphantly suc- 
cessful. I think it not an exageration to say that the quantity 
of intoxicating liquors now sold in the city, except by the city 
agent, is not one fiftieth part so great as it was seven months- 
ago, and the salutary effects of this great improvement are ap- 
parent among the people in all parts of the city." 

The dominant party up to this time had been democratic 
But parties were disintegrating. The slavery issue was split- 
ting them. All parties furnished votes for and against the 
prohibitory law, and this new issue began to gather a party- 
The "rum" element of the democratic party opposed the re- 
election of Gov. Hubbard and with whig sympathizers cast 
21,774 votes for an " anti-Maine law " candidate. Wm. G.- 
Crosby, whig, was elected governor by the Legislature, there 

* Where liquors are sold by appointment of law for medical and mechan- 
ical purposes and the arts only. 



MAINE. 269 



being no choice by the people. The next year, 1853, "the 
•anti-Maine law " wing of the democracy controlled the dem- 
ocratic State convention and nominated Pilsbury, (anti-pro- 
hibitionist) for Governor. The temperance Democrats bolted 
and nominated Anson P. Morrill, In the election Pillsbury 
had 36, 386 votes, Morrill 11,027, Crosby (whig) 27,061, and 
Holmes (free soil) 8,996. The Legislature elected Crosby 
again. In 1854 the temperance democrats, whigs and free- 
toilers united, formed the nucleus of the Republican party, 
which declared for prohibition and free soil and gave Morrill 
44,565 votes. The democratic candidate had 28,462, the 
whig 14,001, scattering 3,478. There being no choice by the 
people the Republican Legislature elected Morrill. In 1855 
the various elements which had enacted the Maine Law in 
185 1 and had elected Morrill the year before, met as the Re- 
publican party, declared for prohibition and free soil and re- 
nominated Morrill. The Democrats nominated Wells, de- 
clared against prohibition and made this their most promi- 
ment issue in the campaign. The vote stood, Morrill 51,441, 
Wells 48,34!? Reed (whig) 14,001. The Democratic Legis- 
lature elected Wells governor, repealed the prohibitory law, 
and enacted a license law. In the election of 1856 the Re- 
publicans won. In accordance with the judgment of many 
prohibitionists who thought their cause could stand better if 
the people could have a chance to see the full working of li- 
cense, no action was taken on the subject till after the elec- 
tion of 1857. At the session of the Legislature in 1858 the 
Republicans repealed the license law and re-enacted the pro- 
hibitory law, submitting the law for the popular verdict. 
It was ratified by the people with a majority of 22,952. Thus 
early was the timidity and time-serving of politicians appa- 
rent, and the loyalty of the masses to prohibition demonstrated. 
Since 1858 no attempt has been made to repeal the Pro- 
hibitory Law. The politicians have had no love for it, but 



270 APPENDIX. 



like some of old "they feared the people" too much to at- 
tempt its repeal. But policy of non-enforcement was open 
to them, to some extent; and in the cities and larger towns 
into which the vicious elements of society are more apt to 
drift, great Laxity has existed. 

"From that day to this, with occasional revivals, the prin- 
ciple of prohibition has been gradually moved towards the 
rear by the political managers, while the policy of prohibition 
has been retained, as a convenient instrumentality for retain- 
ing temperance votes, and securing liquor votes. 

The rightful order has been thus reversed, and instead of 
putting temperance into politics, (which is so much needed,) 
they have put politics into temperance" 

It is to this that is to be attributed the persistent continu- 
ance of an illicit traffic to some extent. 

The legislature of 1882 by a vote of 91 to 30 in the House 
and 22 to 2 in the Senate submitted a Prohibitory Constitu- 
tional Amendment, which was voted on at the general elec- 
tion Sept. 8th, 1884, and it was ratified by a majority of 
46,972. 

The law has recently been amended and to show the nature 
and probable effects of the amendment, I quote the following, 
from the Globe Democrat of recent date : 

GETTING ALARMED. 

The new Maine liquor law w T hich went into effect yesterday 
is causing great alarm among vendors of liquors who have 
gloried in the fact that prohibition has not hitherto prohibi- 
ted. Under the new law the payment of special taxes, or an 
indication or sign that liquor is sold or given away, is to be 
held as "prima facie evidence" that the parties are "common 
sellers of intoxicating liquors and the premises so kept by 
them common nuisances." When it is remembered that 118c- 
persons in Maine hold United States liquor licenses, it will 
be understood that just 1 180 persons are trying to make up. 



IOWA. 271 

their minds whether they had better quit selling or go on as 
before and trust to apathy in the enforcement of the new law. 

And here is one from the Governor : 

Augusta, Maine, March 23. — The finances of the State were 
never more prosperous. Drink habit is fatal to prosperity in 
any community. Prohibition promotes morality every where. 
Nearly all crimes can be traced to rum, either directly or in- 
directly. The law is well enforced in the country towns. In 
some of the cities it is not quite so effective. It is hoped 
the new law will aid the enforcement there. 

Joseph R. Bodwell. 



IOWA. 



STATE PROHIBITION SINCE JULY 4, 1884. 



This new State has a brief but instructive prohibition his- 
tory. It was admitted as a State Dec. 25, 1846. The fruits 
of the agitation whicb produced prohibitory and anti-license 
in almost all the northern states between 1845 and 1856, pro- 
duced in 1855, a prohibitory law in Iowa, passed by the whig 
and republican legislature, and approved by Gov. Grimes. 

"Its vitality was dependent upon adoption by the people at 
the ballot box. The people adopted it. The next legislature 
but one practically annulled it, without asking the people 
whether they would sanction this summary setting aside of 
their verdict as given at the polls. Every means was employed 
to secure re-enactment of the law, or else the re-submission 
of the subject to the people, but without avail. It was finally 
decided by some leading minds to ask Prohibitionists to with- 
hold their suffrages from the various parties, and endeavor 
by show of strength to demonstrate the necessity of their vote 
to any party which desired to remain in power in the State. 



272 APPENDIX. 



To this end, and as a guaranty of good faith in their profes- 
sion of desire to co-operate with the republicans as the domi- 
nant party whenever the temperance issue should be properly 
recognised, the temperance party steadily refused to nominate 
more than one candidate in any campaign, one name being 
sufficient to rally and show the strength of the movement, and 
to show the importance or unimportance of the prohibition 
vote. 

The temperance party was organized in 1875, and J. H. 
Lozier nominated as its first candidate- for governor. He re- 
ceived but 1,397 votes, while Kirkwood, the Republican can- 
didate, was elected by a majority of 30,179 votes. This 
looked somewhat like a failure, and the Republican party did 
not feel compelled to give to prohibition the demanded re- 
cognition. In 1877 the Republicans again ignored the issue, 
and nominated J. H. Gear, while Col. Jessup became the can- 
didate for the prohibitory vote. He received 10,639 votes, 
being almost eight times as many as were cast for Lozier 
only two years before. Mr. Gear ran behind his ticket and 
was a minority governor, lacking 674 of a majority. All other 
names on the ticket were given strong majorities. This 
change was a very suggestive one, and Jessup's vote was not 
the occasion of so much hilarity among politician as was that 
of Lozier. One more such stride, or even a six-fold increase, 
would depose the Republican and put some other party in 
power, the position of the prohibitionists still being : Recog- 
nice our cause, and we will merge our force with yours. The 
Republican convention of 1879 came on. It was desired to 
renominate J. H. Gear, and to elect him this time by a major- 
ity vote. The prohibitionists were on hand, and so far as 
those present could speak for the convention to assemble five 
days later, guaranties were given that no candidate would be 
nominated, provided the standing prayers of the prohibitory 
element were granted. There were just then no such impor- 



IOWA. 273 

tant reconstruction problems unadjusted to specially hold 
Republican voters, as had been the case in each preceeding 
campaign, and the most sagacious politicians feared the re- 
sult if they nominated Gear, an avowed opponent of the prin- 
ciple, and also failed to give favorable recognition of the is- 
sue in the action of the convention. As the result of the con- 
ference, the Republican convention did adopt a resolution 
which was referred to in the platform of two years later as 
making " provisions for submission of the so-called prohibit- 
ory amendment of the constitution of Iowa to a vote of the 
people." Was the " temperance party" dead, a failure, or 
abandoned as yet ? It was tolerable active for a defunct body, 
as the largest convention in its history met the week after the 
Republican convention and held a vigorous session. Under 
the circumstances referred to, however, it was determined to 
put no candidate in the field, save that a small portion of the 
convention who would not vote for Gear under any circum- 
stances, withdrew from the convention and nominated D. R. 
Dungan, who, as an independent, received 3,258 votes. The 
result of this union was that Gear, though running consider- 
ably behind his ticket, was elected by a majority of 
23,828." 

In accordance with the pledges made, the republican legisla- 
ture of 1880-81 prepared a prohibitory amendment and passed 
it. By the provisions of the constitution it laid over for action 
by the legislature of 1881-82, thus giving the people an oppor- 
tunity to elect a new legislature in full view of the pending 
amendment. The second and final legislative vote adopted 
the amendment by a vote of 65 to 24 in the house, and 35 to 
1.1 in the senate. On the 27th of June, 1882, at a special elec- 
tion, there were cast for the amendment, 155,436 votes, and 
against it 125,677; majority, 29,759. This was hailed as a 
great and decisive victory, and it sufficiently proved the great 
underlying fact — the people want prohibition. 



2 74 APPENDIX. 



But the resources of the alcoholists were not exhausted. A 
test case was made, and upon its reaching the supreme court 
the amendment was declared invalid, owing to some alleged 
technicalities. A rehearing of the case resulted in a similar 
decision. 

Great confusion resulted. As usual, the politicians only 
yielded a reluctant consent to the demand of the people. The 
opponents of prohibition were vigorous, and did their best to 
secure at the election Oct. 9, 1883, a legislature which would 
enact a license law. The democratic party espoused this side 
and openly advocated it. The republicans, in a rather vague 
and uncertain way, depending an the sentiment of the locality,, 
advocated prohibition, if they said anything about it, some 
condemning, others strongly defending the principle. The 
party was in the dilemma a party must always be, in attempt- 
ing to take on an issue not originally embraced in its creed. 
Still, the general result was favorable. The republicans car- 
ried the State, electing a majority which said: "The people 
want prohibition, and they shall have it." A strong and care- 
fully prepared prohibitory statute was enacted, which went 
into effect July 4, 1884, and the Iowa Prohibitionists were at 
the end of their trouble — the first end. 

In reply to a letter written by the Secretary of the central 
committee of the prohibition campaign of this State in re- 
gards to the workings of prohibition in Iowa the Governor 
says: 

In eighty out of the ninety-nine counties of the state prohi- 
bition is enforced, and in the remaining nineteen counties it 
it is partly enforced ; that no property has been depreciated 
by its enforcement, as saloons make room for better and more 
legitimate business; that the enforcement of the law has had 
no noticeable effect upon the population beyond causing the 
removal from the State of some incurable consumers. The 
effects of prohibition upon the general welfare and habits of 
the people, he says, are decidedly wholsome. The prohibi- 



KANSAS. 275 



tion sentiment is on the increase, and there is no doubt that 
prohibition is an established power in Iowa. 

We also append the following telegram from the commis- 
sioner of labor statistics: 

Des Moines, Iowa, March 23. 

Governor and attorney-general both say prohibition has 

constantly improved the moral, social and financial condition 

of Iowa, and is successfully enforced in eighty-five of the 

ninety-nine counties, also growing rapidly in the remainder. 

E. R. Hutchins. 

On February 3, 1887, Governor Larrabee also said: 

"I find in the cities and counties where the prohibitory law 
is well enforced, crime and police expenses fall off wonder- 
fully. Not a saloon is open in this, the largest city in the 
state. The sheriff of this county told me a few days since 
that he had spoiled his business by enforcing the law. He 
also stated that h? was glad of it. Several of the judges have 
recently told me that there was a marked falling off in crimi- 
nal business in their courts in consequence of the enforce- 
ment of the law. There are several judicial districts without 
a single open saloon. If our courts and sheriffs and consta- 
bles would do their duty properly, the saloons would soon be 
completely driven out. 



KANSAS. 



STATE PROHIBITION.* 

As an example of the utter inefficiency of prohibitory 
liquor laws of any kind in the suppression of drunkenness and 
its concomitant vices, the opponents of such laws often refer 

♦Communication published by the author in Q retnvllle Herald, Octo- 
ber, 1886, pending local option contest. 



276 APPENDIX. 



to the failure of constitutional, or State prohibition in Kansas. 
It is a very easy thing for them to assert that prohibition in 
Kansas is a failure, and there are many of our people who are 
doubtlessly misled by the reckless assertion. But few will take 
the trouble to procure the statistics from which the actual re- 
sults of the law are unmistakably shown. It is nothing un- 
common to hear men who are interested in the liquor busi- 
ness (and nothing else could be reasonably expected of them) 
that more whisky is sold and consumed in sections where pro- 
hibitory laws obtain than in other places where the traffic is 
legalized by the government. And strange to say that the 
wholesale dealers refuse to encourage the adoption or enact- 
ment of such laws, which must necessarily, according to their 
own theory increase their business, however destructive it 
may be to the saloons and doggeries of the country. Such 
disinterestedness is only met with among the noble-hearted, 
generous, and self-sacrificing liquor dealers of the land. The 
writer has taken the trouble to procure the official statistics 
relating to the enforcement and practical operation of the 
Kansas prohibitory laws, obtained from unquestionably re- 
liable authority. In 1879 a prohibitory amendment to the 
Constitution was submitted to a vote of the people, which in 
1881 became a part of the organic law of the State. 

In May of the same year the legislature of Kansas enacted 
such penal statutes under said amendment as were thought 
necessary to carry prohibition into practical operation. In 
some respects the laws passed by the legislature were similar 
to those of our own local option system, but decidedly more 
rigid. The penalty for violation of these various provisions 
were more severe and extended not only to the unlawful sel- 
ler, but to the buyer who resorted to any kind of a subterfuge 
in order to obtain the forbidden article. While the purchase 
•and sale of intoxicating liquors for medical and mechanical 
purposes were permitted, under severe restrictions, it was made 



KANSAS. 277 



extremely dangerous for both buyer and seller to attempt an 
evasion of the spirit of the law through the medium of the ex- 
ceptions. When the law went into effect quite a number of 
the saloon-keepers of the State determined to resist its enforc- 
ment. Among other grounds they claimed that the law was 
sumptuary, unconstitutional, and subversive of personal lib- 
erty. They were convicted, and appealed to the Supreme 
Court, which promptly affirmed the judgment, overruling all 
objections urged against the law on the ground of unconstitu- 
tionality or otherwife. In the course of a few months it be- 
came evident that the law had come to stay, and so the saloon- 
keepers concluded that it would be safer and healthier to 
yield to the inevitable. Those who refused to obey the law 
were vigorously prosecuted, especially in the rural counties,, 
and, if the records do not lie, it would seem that a large ma- 
jority of them, judging from the original number of saloons 
which held out against the enforcement of the law, suffered 
the severest penalties. 

The record shows that seventy-nine per cent of all the pros- 
ecutions instituted for violations of the law resulted in con- 
victions — a larger per cent by about one-third than were con- 
victed in ordinary cases. Out of two hundred and ninety- 
five cases reported on the first of June, 1885, two hundred and 
thirty convictions resulted, as appears from the Attorney Gen- 
eral's report, now before me. There were then about seventy- 
five of the eighty-four counties of the State which were en- 
tirely rid of saloons and their baleful and damaging influence. 
The special reports of the various county attorneys to the 
Attorney General's office show that the law was strictly en- 
forced in all parts of the State, except in some of the larger 
cities, especially those on the border. This is accounted for 
in some instances by the fact that the city governments and 
their officers were in full sympathy with the liquor element, 
as is not unfrequently the case, even in our own State. In one 



278 APPENDIX. 



of these cities the mayor was successfully impeached and dis- 
graced on account of his connection with this class of law- 
breakers. The reports show that whisky has been success- 
fully routed from the city of Topeka after a long and appar- 
ently doubtful struggle between the two contending forces. 
The county attorney of Shawnee county, writing from To- 
peka, Kansas, says: "All the saloons were closed about Feb- 
ruary 1, 1885, since which time there has not been an open 
saloon in the city (Topeka). There have been several back- 
rooms up-stairs, down-cellar, and back-alley places, but their 
lives were short." 

The prohibitory law has been the means of reducing drink- 
ing more in this city than can be written by my pen. There 
is not in my mind one-tenth of the drinking there was before. 
The best evidence of this is the record of our city court. 
Many of the prosecuting officers complain that they are not 
supported and sustained in their efforts to enforce the law, by 
the people, including specially some of the most enthusiastic 
and vigorous advocates of the cause. 

In 1885 the act of 1881 was amended and changed in many 
of its features. The penalties for violation of its various pro- 
visions were increased, and in addition to pecuniary fines, 
which were frequently paid by contributions from the oppo- 
nents of the law, imprisonment of not less than thirty days was 
added, and some times the maximum punishment was unusu- 
ally severe. The effect of the imprisonment was very percep- 
tible, as a large number of the transgressors soon afterwards 
found themselves individually and personally languishing in 
the jails of the State. There is, as in our State, a provision 
authorizing druggists to sell liquors for medical and mechan- 
ical purposes, but the restrictions imposed are much more 
stringent than in ours, and ample provision is made for the pun- 
ishment of such druggists, and such physicians as may attempt 
to take advantage of the law granting a special permit to them 



KANSAS. 279 



to dispense such liquors for the purposes named in the excep- 
tion in their favor. Means are provided for the immediate 
forfeiture of their permits, which are granted by the probate 
judge, upon certain conditions. 

It is admitted by ail that there are some of these druggists 
who use their permits as a means of violating the spirit and 
intent of the law, but it is thoroughly demonstrated by the 
reports from all official and reliable sources that there is not 
one-tenth of the drinking and drunkenness that prevails under 
the old system. Every person holding such permit is required 
under severe penalties to keep a register of every sale of 
liquor he makes and to report the same with the purposes for 
which it is made, to the judge issuing the permit. From this 
report a fair estimate of the amount used can be obtained 
and furthermore it furnishes an indication of the manner in 
which the permit is being used by the druggist. This feature 
of the law is objected to by many prohibitionists of the state. 
As to the effect prohibition has had upon the State, I will 
content myself with an extract from a speech of Governor 
Martin delivered at Topeka on the 16th day of September 
last, which seems to have been taken from the statistics on 
file among the archives of the State. 

In 1880 the population of the State was 996,096. We had 
been twenty-five years in attaining that population. To-day 
Kansas has not less than 1,500,000 inhabitants. In five years 
we have gained half a million. In 1880 only 55 towns and 
cities had a population exceeding 1,000, and six had each 
over 5,000. In 1885, 91 towns and cities each had over 
1,000, and twelve had each over 5,000. In 1880 we had only 
8,868,884. acres under cultivation; in 1885 we had 14,252,815 
acres, In 1880 the farms of Kansas were valued at only 
$235,178,936, and the farm products for that year aggregated 
only $84,521,486 ; in 1885 the farms of the State were valued 
at $408,073,454, and the farm products of that year aggregated 
$143,557,018. In 1880 the live stock of Kansas was worth 
only $61,563,950 ; in 1885 it was worth $117,881,699. In 1SS0 



280 APPENDIX. 



the assessed valuation of the property of Kansas, real, per- 
sonal and railroad, aggregated $160,891,689 ; in 1885 it aggre- 
gated $248,845,276. In 1880 we had only 3,104 miles of rail- 
way ; we have now 5,117 miles. In 1880 we had 5,315 school 
houses ; in 1885 we had 6,673. I* 1 *%8o we expended $1,818,- 
336 for the support of our common schools; in 1885 we ex- 
pended $2,977,763. In 1880 we had only 357 newspapers and 
2,514 churches ; in 1885 we had 581 newspapers and 3,976 
churches." 

This speech contains other valuable statistics proving to a 
moral certainty that prohibition does prohibit, the assertions 
of whisky advocates to the contrary notwithstanding, and 
prohibition is working out a great moral and social reform in 
the State of Kansas. 

As an evidence of the efficacy of the law, I quote as follows 
from the late message of Governor Martin, delivered to the 
Legislature during the present year, 1887: 

A great reform has certainly been accomplished in Kansas. 
Intemperance is steadily and surely decreasing. In thousands 
of homes where want and wretchedness and suffering were 
once familiar guests, plenty, happiness and contentment now 
abide. Thousands of wives and children are better clothed 
and fed than they were when the saloons absorbed all the 
earnings of husbands and fathers. The marvelous material 
growth of the State during the past six years has been accom- 
panied by the equally marvelous moral progress, and it can 
be fairly and truthfully asserted that in no portion of the civ- 
ilized world can a million and a half of people be found who 
are more temperate than the people of Kansas. 

There is not a town, city or neighborhood in the State in 
which an illegal traffic in liquors can be carried on for a sin- 
gle week if the local officers discharge the duties plainly en- 
joined upon them by law with zeal and fidelity. Provide the 
necessary laws to compel local officers to discharge their 
sworn duties, and to remove them when they neglect or refuse 
to do so, and there will be no need to make any changes in 
our statutes. On the other hand, no matter what amendments 
are made nor what provisions are added to the present laws, 



KANSAS. 28l 



they will be ineffectual so long as the municipal authorities or 
cities or counties can nullify or disregard them without fear 
of removal or punishment. 

The public sentiment of Kansas is overwhelmingly against 
the liquor traffic. Thousands of men, who a few years ago 
opposed prohibition, or doubted whether it was the best 
method of dealing with the liquor traffic, have seen and 
frankly acknowledge its beneficent results and its practical 
success. The temptations with which the open saloon allured 
the youth of the land to disgrace and destruction; the appe- 
tite for liquor bred and matured w T ithin its walls by the treat- 
ing custom; the vice, crime, poverty, suffering and sorrow of 
which it is always the fruitful source, all these evil results of 
the open saloon have been abolished in nearly every city and 
town in Kansas. 

There is not an observing man in the State who does not 
know that a great reform has been accomplished in Kansas by 
prohibition. There is not a truthful man in the State who 
will not frankly acknowledge this fact, no matter what his 
opinions touching the policy of prohibition may have been; 
and I firmly believe that if the amendments to the law that 
I have suggested are made, and if authority is provided for 
compelling local officers to discharge the duties required of 
them by law, within three months there will not be an open 
saloon in Kansas, and the sale of intoxicating liquors as a 
beverage will be practically abolished." 

In 1881 Governor Martin was opposed to the law because 
he did not think "it would work." The prohibitory laws of 
Kansas have recently been amended in important particulars, 
and it is said that it is now practically impossible to engage 
in the illegal sale of liquor in that State without detection 
and severe punishment. 



252 APPENDIX. 



OHIO. 



NO LICENSE CAN BE GRANTED BUT THE STATE MAY LEGISLATE 
UPON EVILS RESULTING FROM THE TRAFFIC. 



In Ohio as in every other State of the Union, and in every 
civilized country the liquor traffic has been regarded as a 
proper subject of legislation. Unrestrained and unregulated 
it has been considered a dangerous business. In a period of 
six hundred years there have been four hundred laws enacted 
on this subject in England by the British Parliament. 

In all the States and Territories of the United States more 
legislation has been had upon this than upon all other occu- 
pations. 

From the adoption of the first constitution of Ohio in 1802 
down to 1852, the legislature of the State was continually try- 
ing to mitigate the evils connected with this traffic, by a judi- 
cious and well-regulated license system. Every person who 
proposed to engage in the business was required to prove a 
good moral character, and be well qualified for the work; he 
must keep a quiet and orderly house and procure a license, 
paying a stipulated sum for the privilege. He was also 
required to prove by persons residing in the vicinity that a 
grogshop was necessary in the locality. Year after year new 
and more stringent conditions were added. Judges of the 
courts were required to grant licenses to sell drinks to suit- 
able persons in proper localities within their jurisdiction. 
Courts were more or less strict in the exercise of their power 
as they were favorable or unfavorable to the business. It 
created no little public excitement and comment when 
Judge Fishback, of Clermont, turned away all applicants for 
a license. 



OHIO. 283 

He claimed that, while the law was imperative, that 
he should grant licenses to persons of good moral character 
in suitable places, it did not define what localities were 
suitable, but left that to the sacred discretion of the courts, 
and he was clearly of the opinion that there was no suitable 
place. for such a nefarious business in his jurisdiction, and 
while he occupied the bench he would not entertain any ap- 
plication for a license. In 185 1 a convention was called to 
form a new constitution. The friends of temperance through- 
out the State petitioned to the convention to put a no-license 
clause in the new constitution. Fears were entertained that 
such a clause would result in a rejection by the people of the 
instrument. By strong and persistent pressure and personal 
appeals the convention consented to submit to the people a 
schedule which it adopted by a majority of the voters in a 
separate ballot; it should be section 18, of article 16 of the 
Constitution. The schedule submitted read as follows : " No 
license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be 
granted in the State, but the General Assembly may by law 
provide against the evils resulting therefrom." A most excit- 
ing canvass followed. The friends of temperance, believing 
that a great point in favor of their reform would be gained by 
taking away the legal sanction of a license, marshaled their 
forces to secure the insertion of the above clause in the or- 
ganic law of the State. The result was its adoption by a ma- 
jority of 8000, greater than was given for the Constitution 
kself. 

From that date to the present no commission has ever 
been given by any court, or city, or town council to any per- 
son to make drunkards. The liquor traffic has not had any 
legal sanction. The caustic, but just, criticism upon the license 
system by the immortal Cowper has not been applicable to 
Ohio since the year 1852. More than one hundred years ago 
in his inimitable verse he said: 



284 APPENDIX. 



"The ten thousand casks, forever dribling out their base contents 
Touched by the Midas finger of the State, 
Bleed gold for parliament to vote away. — 
Drink and be mad then, 'tis your country bids; 
Gloriously obey the important call; 
Her cause demands the assistance of your throats; 
Ye all can swallow, and she asks no more." 

"To provide against the evils resulting from the traffic" as 
authorized by the new constitution, the General Assembly in 
1854 passed a law which in some | rural districts was attended 
with beneficial results, and which, if it had been enforced 
throughout the State, would have been as effective as any pro- 
hibitory law anywhere. Among its provisions were the follow- 
ing, brieflly stated: No liquor should be sold to be drunk on 
the premises where sold. None should be sold to minors or 
persons intoxicated or who were in the habit of getting intox- 
icated. All places where sold contrary to the provisions of 
the law were declared to be nuisances, which should be shut 
up and abated and the keeper fined and imprisoned. In 1859 
amendments were made providing for the punishment of the 
drunkard, and additional penalties against selling liquor to 
drunkards. 

In 1870 the law was still further amended by authorizing a 
wife or child, or other person injured in person or property, or 
means of support, to sue and recover exemplary damages from 
any person who sold liquor to any one in the habit of becom- 
ing intoxicated. This law — called the Adair law — authorized 
a wife or minor child to sue in their own name. Judgments 
were made lien upon the premises where the liquor was ob- 
tained. 

As a general and almost universal rule the courts were not 
inclined to enforce the law. Occasionally heavy exemplary 
damages were recovered by a wife or child, but the criminal 
provisions of the law were a dead letter. It was generally 



OHIO. 285 

held that the constitution protected the traffic, and only al- 
lowed attacks to be made against the evils resulting from it. 
When the constitution was adopted, temperance men supposed 
that full power was given to the legislature to prohibit the 
traffic, as that was the only way possible to provide against 
the evils; in other words, that the evils were incident to, and 
always and everywhere concented with, the existence of the 
traffic. 

In 1870 the General Assembly gave to cities and incorpo- 
rated villages the power to regulate, restrain, and prohibit ale, 
beer, and porter houses, and places of notorious and habitual 
resort for tippling or intemperance. 

In pursuance of this authority the town council of McCon- 
nellsville, in Morgan county, passed a stringent prohibitory 
ordinance against tippling shops. Prosecutions were had 
under it, and appeals were taken to the Supreme Court. To 
the surprise of every body and the mortification of the 
liquor-sellers, the constitutionality and legality of the ordi- 
nance were affirmed. This McConnellsville ordinance be- 
came a pattern or model for other incorporated villages. The 
later rulings of the Supreme Court gave to the General As- 
sembly the constitutional authority to entirely prohibit the 
traffic and does not limit its power to the evils resulting 
from it. 

In 1881 a law was passed called "The Stubbs Bill, ,, pro- 
hibiting the sale of spiritous liquors on Sunday ; the penalty 
for a violation was a fine of $50. This is substantially a dead 
letter, as Sunday is a principal day for carousals, especially 
in the large cities. 

In 1883 the " Scott Law" was enacted. It's object was to 
get a revenue from the traffic. It imposed an annual tax for 
the privilege of selling beer and wine, and $200 for the sale of 
whisky. The tax was made a lien upon the premises when 
sold. This tax was to be collected, like other taxes, by the 



286 APPENDIX. 



County Treasurer, one-fourth to go into the poor fund, and 
the balance distributed to the cities and villages where the 
traffic was carried on. It also prohibited selling on Sunday, 
and gave to municipal corporations the power to regulate 
and control the sale of beei and native wine on Sunday. Sel- 
ling to minors or intoxicated persons or to persons in the 
habit of becoming intoxicated, was prohibited under the 
penalty of a fine from $25 to $100 and imprisonment from 
five to thirty days. 

Hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid into the coun- 
ty treasuries by the liquor-sellers in obedience to the require- 
ments of this law. The constitutionality of this law was 
questioned, and, to test it, cases were taken to the Supreme 
Court. The court held that the tax was virtually a license, 
and therefore unconstitutional. 

In 1866 " The Dow Law " was enacted. It was substantial}' 
a re-enactment of " The Scott Law." Of course its consti- 
tutionality was questioned, and cases were taken to the Su- 
preme Court. The political composition of the court had 
been changed from a majority of Democrats to a majority of 
Republicans, and, as the Republican party had committed 
itself fully in favor of the measure, the Republican judges 
sustained the law. Now, in Ohio, everybody is permitted to 
engage in the traffic upon the payment of the tax. The amount 
is the same in city and country, whether the sales are large or 
small. The beer tax is $100 and the whisky tax is $200 per 
annum, and is a lien upon the premises where sold. The man- 
ifest object of the " no license " clause in the constitution was, 
to outlaw the liquor traffic and prevent getting a revenue from 
it. By this tax law a large revenue is secured, which quite 
reconciles a large number of tax payers. It is in effect a uni- 
versal license to everybody, without regard to qualifications, 
who can pay the tax. The large brewers, for the sake of fur- 
nishing their beer, pay the tax of the saloon keeper. 



OHIO. 287 

The constitutionality of the McConnellsville ordinance 
having been sustained, incorporated villages may, by their 
councils, prohibit the liquor traffic within their jurisdictions. 

In many villages the councils are submitting the question 
to the electors and are being governed by the decision. There 
is no local option for those living outside of a municipality. 

The General Assembly of the State may, according to the 
decision of the Supreme Court, entirely prohibit the liquor 
traffic without any amendment to the Constitution. As the 
State can now derive a large revenue from the traffic, the sen- 
timent is strong to keep things as they are. 

The struggle for prohibition in Ohio will be a protracted 
one. Her native population is largely in favor of entire pro- 
hibition. The distilling and brewing interests are very great. 
There is a very large foreign population, and all political 
parties court their patronage. The large revenue derived 
from taxation of the traffic goes very far to quiet and recon- 
cile the people with the saloons. In 1883 two propositions 
were submitted to a vote of the electors, namely : "License," 
or " Prohibition." A vote for a restoration of the 6 ' License 
System " was very small ; of those who voted on the question 
" Prohibition " had a large majority. As it required a 
majority of all the votes given for the highest candidates on 
the tickets cast at the election, it failed by a very small 
majority. By a fair construction of the law and an honest 
count, prohibition carried by more than thirty thousand 
majority. 



APPENDIX. 



INDIANA. 



LICENSE SYSTEM. 



The first law passed by the legislature of Indiana for the reg- 
ulation of the liquor traffic was enacted in 1807, which provi- 
ded that no person should "keep any public inn or tavern, ale 
house, or public house of entertainment at any place within 
the territory unless such person shall first obtain permission 
or license from the Court of Common Pleas, etc," and pro- 
viding the length of time such permission should continue 
with appropriate penalties for its violation, including forfeit- 
ure in some cases. It also contained a provision that the 
Governor should issue a proclamation prohibiting the sale of 
intoxicating liquors to the Indians within thirty miles of any 
council, treaty, or conference. In 18 13 the law was amended 
so as to require clerks to furnish lists of taverns to the grand 
juries, and allowing them to grant temporary permits during 
the vacation of their courts. A bond was also required con- 
ditioned for the good behavior of those holding permits or li- 
censes to deal in intoxicating liquors. In 181 7 a law was 
passed prohibiting the sale of liquors on Sunday, (except to 
travelers). In 18 18 the selling of liquor to be drank on the 
premises where sold was prohibited under appropriate penal- 
ties. Also, prohibiting gaming, rioting, or disorderly conduct 
about such premises. The act further prohibited the sale of 
intoxicating liquors to minors, apprentices, or servants, or to 
persons in a state of intoxication, and provided further that 
no debt contracted for liquor above five dollars should be col- 
lectable by law. 

In 1820 an act was passed requiring tavern keepers to set 
up for one whole day, "the bill of prices," and punishing 
severely any person charging more than was allowed by law. 



INDIANA. 



In 1824 it was provided that any person applying for license 
should produce the certificate of twelve respectable freehol- 
ders that the applicant was of good moral character. In 1825 
the number of respectable free holders signing the applicant's 
certificate of "good moral character" was increased to twen- 
ty-four. In 1828 the license was permitted to be issued to 
others than tavern keepers, which marked the beginning of 
the era of saloons and "tippling houses" in Indiana. The 
law was amended in 1831 providing for the collection of taxes 
from the keepers of "tippling house" or saloons by the muni- 
cipal authorities in incorporated towns or cities. The license 
act was so amended in 1832 as to require the certificate by 
twenty-four freeholders, not only of good moral character of 
the applicant therefor (if a tavern-keeper), but an assurance 
that it would be for the benefit and convenience of travelers 
and conducive to the public good. The act required the 
applicant to show that he owned or rented a good house of 
at least three rooms with four good stalls, two beds and bed- 
ding more than are used by the family. The license was not 
transferable. 

One section of the act provided for license to other persons 
than tavern-keepers, similar to previous acts. From 1834 to 
1873 a number of special acts were passed allowing towns and 
cities to is^ie licenses to retailers of spirituous liquors. 

By act of 1837, the board of county commissioners were 
required to levy a tax upon liquor dealers of not less than 
fifteen nor more than one hundred dollars. In 1838 an act 
was passed making it unlawful to keep a tippling house within 
the bounds of any incorporated town without a town license 
for a sum at the discretion of the corporation authorities not 
less than twenty-five dollars for the benefit of a public school 
fund for such town. In 1839 ^ was provided in the act for 
levying taxes that the commissioner should issue on each 
license to retail spirituous liquors not less than twenty-five 



29O APPENDIX. 



nor more than one hundred dollars. In 1841 a law was passed 
declaring " all tippling houses or places wherein spirituous or 
intoxicating liquors were sold without license and drank about 
the same, if kept in a disorderly manner," to be common pub- 
lic nuisances, providing adequate penalties therefor, and means 
for their abatement. The county taxes were also increased to 
a maximum of two hundred dollars, and it was provided that 
a majority of the citizens, householders, might remonstrate 
against the issuance of such license, which latter provision 
authorizing a remonstrance was repealed in 1843. The act 
of 1843 provided for the payment of a tax to the incorporated 
town in which liquors were sold not less than ten dollars 
nor more than two hundred dollars, for the benefit of the free 
schools of such incorporated town. In 1847 tne nrst local 
option law was passed, which provided that a majority of the 
voters of the several townships of the several counties with 
some exceptions, should determine at the ballot box whether 
or not any license should be granted. 

In the same year a number of towns and cities were 
specially authorized to restrain and prohibit the sale of spirit- 
ous liquors, unless those proposing to engage in the traffic 
should be licensed by such cities and towns prescribed, the 
general laws and their ordinances imposing taxes and re- 
strictions. From 1849 to 1851 a number of special pro- 
hibitory laws were enacted for different counties of the State, 
and proper penalties imposed for their violation. In 1852 a 
fine was imposed upon any person selling intoxicating liquors, 
cider, beer, or other drinks within two miles of any collection 
of inhabitants met together for worship. In 1853 a general 
law was enacted prohibiting the sale of spiritous liquors in 
any quantities less than one 'gallon except for sacramental, 
medicinal, chemical or culinary purposes without the consent 
of a majority of the legal voters and people ot the township, 
nor without filing with the auditor a bond conditioned for the 



INDIANA. 29I 



payment of all fines, penalties, and damages that may be in- 
curred under such act. In 1855 a stringent State prohibitory 
law was enacted of which the following are the main features: 
First, it was provided that no person should sell by himself or 
agent any spirituous or intoxicating liquors, except as there- 
inafter provided. 

Second, ale, porter, malt beer, lager beer, cider, and all 
wines, and fermented liquor which will produce intoxication, 
and all mixed liquors of which a part is spirituous or intox- 
icating liquors are includedin the terms "intoxicating liquors" 
and within the meaning of the act. 

Third, the county commissioners could give authority to 
manufacture at such places as they should designate, and to 
sell the same at such places only in any quantities to the duly 
authorized agents of the several counties for not more than 
one year, the authority being subject to revocation at any 
time. 

Fourth, the commissioners could appoint suitable persons 
or agents of the county they represented for the purchase and 
sale of spirituous liquors for medicinal, chemical, and me- 
chanical purposes only, and wine for sacramental use. 

Fifth, the manner of dispensing such liquors by the agent 
of counties was rigidly prescribed so as to prevent the abuse 
of the authority conferred upon them. 

Sixth, adequate penalties including fines and forfeitures 
were provided for by the prohibitory statute. 

A mode of procedure for the condemnation and destruction 
of the liquors kept for unlawful sale was provided, and, taking 
it altogether, it appears to have been a very tight paper on 
the traffic of that State. In 1858 the law of 1855 was repealed. 
In 1859 a license system was adopted similar to the one ex- 
isting upon the enactment of the general prohibitory law in 
1855. In 1861 the law was slightly amended, and in 1S65 a 
severe penalty was imposed upon persons selling spirituous 



292 APPENDIX. 



liquors on Sunday, or election day, etc. In 1873 the license 
law was amended making it more stringent and effective in 
some important particulars. In 1875 a ^ aw was passed pun- 
ishing drunkenness in office, and the general law again amend- 
ed, but the changes were not such as materially affected the 
general features of the system. In 1877 a severe penalty, in- 
cluding imprisonment, was prescribed for selling spirituous 
liquors, even by druggists, except on written prescription on 
Sunday, Fourth of July, New Years, or Christmas, Thanks- 
giving, or election day. 

In the same year incorporated towns were authorized to 
license the sale of liquors at a tax not exceeding the prices 
charged by the State. This last provision was re-enacted in 
1879. I n 1 ^ 1 tne Legislature proposed to submit to the vote 
of the State the following amendment to the constitution: 

Section 1. - The manufacture, sale, or keeping for sale, in 
said State, spirituous, vinous, malt liquors, or any other in- 
toxicating liquor, except for medical, scientific, mechanical, 
and wines for sacramental purposes, shall be, and is hereby 
forever forbid. 

Section 2. The General Assembly of the State of Indiana 
shall provide by law in what manner, by whom, and at what 
places such liquors shall be manufactured or sold for medi- 
cal, scientific, mechanical, and sacramental purposes. 

During the same session of the Legislature another act was 
passed defining and punishing drunkenness in office. Also 
providing for the punishment of drunkenness* generally, and 
amending the law prescribing the manner, times, etc., of sell- 
ing liquors by persons licensed by the State. Under the In- 
diana constitution it requires that a proposed amendment 
shall be agreed to by two Legislatures before submission to 
the people. No amendment has yet been submitted. The 
lower house of the last Legislature passed a stringent local 
option law which failed in the senate. As to the practical 



INDIANA. 293 



workings of the various license systems which have prevailed 
in Indiana it is unnecessary to speak, They are generally 
known and understood by the people who have been able to 
discern for themselves the results in their own States. 

Upon the history of the prohibitory legislation in Indiana 
I quote from the very excellent little book by Rev. T. A. 
Goodwin, entitled "Seventy-six years Tussle with the Traffic": 

" A study of the legislation for the first thirty years will 
interest the reader and show why I call this contest a tussle 
— now one on top, now the other. At first a man, to be qual- 
ified to sell liquor, had to be of "good behavior." But so 
many behaved badly that eleven years later in 1818 he had to 
prove that he was a man of "good moral character" by twelve 
respectable householders. But seven years later, in 1825, it 
took twenty-four witnesses and they all had to be free holders. 
But this proving inconvenient, three years later, 1828, the 
traffic was on top, and twelve were enough; but as they all 
had to live in the town or township, it was not much of a vic- 
tory, especially since, if a majority of the freeholders remon- 
strated, there should be no license at all! Four years later 
the traffic was again on top, for though it again required 
twenty-four free holders to prove the necessary facts, they 
could go anywhere in and out of the town to get them, though 
still a remonstrance of a majority of freeholders could exclude 
taverns altogether. And this tussle has continued to this day, 
with the traffic most frequently on to." 

Referring to the period of local legislation, the same author 
says : 

A glance at the liquor legislation of this period is interest- 
ing. It was within these five years that those numerous at- 
tempts to obtain local prohibition were — now a town, now a 
township, and now a county- — until, by one sweep in 1847, a 
general law was passed that if a majority of all the votes 
of any township should vote no license, then there should be 
none for that year in that township. It was something of a 
concession to the temperance sentiment, but still recognizing 



294 APPENDIX. 



the right to keep a tippling-house as a natural one ; but it 
was more than neutralized by the insignificant penalties for 
selling without licenses. 

It is an interesting fact, which may as well be mentioned 
here as elsewhere in this history, that from the first to the 
very last, every temperance organization has started out 
to ignore politics and save the world wholly by moral suasion, 
and that they have always found friends and advisers in that 
large class of " good temperance men," who never attend 
temperance meetings, or contribute to the cause anything 
more substantial than good advice. The Sons of Temper- 
ance were no exception to this. They assured every candi- 
date before entering the room that the ceremonies and duties 
of the order should not interfere with his political views, be 
they what they may ; hence, when at the Grind Division held 
at South Bend in July, 1848, it was proposed to memorialize 
the next Legislature to so amend the liquor law that no votes 
should be counted for license unless expressly so cast, the 
proposition was voted down by a large majority. " Our mis- 
sion is to save the fallen," was the pious purpose of the order, 
as then interpreted. But the " Sons of Temperance," like 
every other temperance organization, before and since, got 
bravely over such nambi-pambyism. 

Nine months later, at Evansville, the Grand Division re- 
solved unanimously to take steps looking towards prohibi- 
tion, and from that day until the prohibitory law of 1855 was 
enacted it never faltered. 

MORE STRINGENT LAW DEMANDED. 

Higher and still higher the sentiment in favor of more strin- 
gent legislation arose. It will be seen by studying the law of 
1853 that it was a Mosaic, composed of gems from the several 
local laws which had been tried in many townships and coun- 
ties of the State, and if it could have been sustained by the 
courts, it would no doubt have done much good for humanity. 
It worked admirably while it was permitted to work, but it 
fell. . It is too late now to criticise the reasoning of the court 
which fiist robbed it of its local option feature, and then, lit- 
tle by little, dismembered its license features and finally de- 
clared it null and void. 



INDIANA. 295 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1854. 

What followed is a history worth studying. It was mid- 
summer when the hastily prepared and hastily decided case 
of Maze vs. the State struck the fatal blow. It was soon fol- 
lowed by a series of crusades by women — not crusades of 
prayers and songs, such as was the fashion twenty years later, 
but crusades of hatchets and axes. Fifty women, headed 
by a resolute girl, went fort at Winchester and destroyed sev- 
eral saloons, and similar appeals were made in behalf of so- 
briety at Cambridge City, Centerville, and elsewhere. 

The Grand Division met soon afterwards in its annual ses- 
sion. It was composed of many of the leading men 
of the State. Dr. Ryland T Brown, then in the vigor of ma- 
ture manhood, was elected Grand Worthy Patriarch, and was 
requested to devote as much time as possible to a canvass of 
the State for prohibition after a model of the Maine law, and 
prohibition became the watchword everywhere. It was 
preached from the pulpits and declared from the platforms, so 
that early in the following January the temperance people 
held a meeting in Masonic Hall and raised twelve thousand 
dollars in a short time for a thorough organization of the 
State on the issue which the liquor interest of the State had 
thrust upon them. They appointed an effective State central 
committee, opened an office in Indianapolis, and proceeded 
to organize for the campaign, with the legend, " Search, seiz- 
ure, confiscation, and destruction," flying from their penants. 
Every county was organized, and allegiance to all political 
parties was distinctly renounced, so that by the first of May 
the temperance element of the State was well in hand. 

WORKINGS OF THE LAW. 

On the workings of the law, the same author quotes from 
the leading papers of the State as follows: 



Such is a history of the passage of the law. It was to take 
effect on the twelfth of June, and it took effect. On the 
morning of the thirteenth every saloon in Indiana was closed, 
and crape was hung upon many of the doors in token of the 



296 APPENDIX. 



bereavement; and not a single saloon was open for public 
business from that day till the eighth day of the following 
November. 

Speaking of the workings of the law in Indianapolis, the 
Indianapolis Sentinel of the fifteenth of June said: The temp- 
erance law so far has been universally and faithfully observed. 
We hear of no disposition to violate its provisions. " And the 
local editor, the same day, said: "The new liquor law has 
knocked police items into a cocked hat. Not a single item 
is to be obtained now on account of John Barlecorn." Recur- 
ring to the subject again on the twentieth it said : "That the 
people of Indiana desire and will have a reasonable and con- 
stitutional law for the suppression of the evils of intemper- 
ance, none are blind enough to deny." Recurring again to 
the same subject, on the 28th of June it said: "During the 
past fifteen days there has not been a single commitment to 
the county jail for the violation of city ordinances, and in 
the way of arrests by the city police, there is little or nothing 
doing" 

The Indianapolis Locomotive, of the 23rd of June, said : 
"There has not been a single arrest or commitment to prison 
since June 12th. The mayor sits quietly in his official chair, 
and the night-watch doses on the store boxes." Such was the 
peace and order which followed, that on the twelfth of July, 
just one month after the taking effect of the law, the Indiana- 
polis Conncil reduced the night watch one-half. Referring 
to this fact, the Locomotive, of the 21st of July, said: 'The 
temperance law has nearly abolished rioting, drunkenness, 
and rowdying, and the taxpayers are reducing their expenses." 
The Journal referring to this reduction in its issue of July 
24th, said: 'The reduction of the night watch was on ac- 
count of the diminution of disturbance and.drunkeness from 
the enforcement of the prohibitory law. 5 

The Indianapolis Evening Republican, of the 29th of June> 
said : " Rummeys no longer perambulate the streets, making 
night hideous : and the watchmen have little to do. The 
Journal of August 20th said : " The law diminished crime, re- 
duced drunkenness, saved money, and emptied jails until the 
Supreme Court took hold of it." It was the same everywhere. 
The Sentinel's New Albany correspondent, of June 24th, said : 
"The liquor law is generally and faithfully observed in this 



INDIANA. 



2 97 



section of the State." And the New Albany Tribune of the 
27th said : " The sixty or seventy saloons of this city have 
been closed for two weeks." The Lafayette Journal of July 
said: " Since June 12th the mayor's court of this city has 
been almost deserted. Our jail is now clear of all corpora- 
tion prisoners, and the good effects of the law have been felt 
at many firesides." The Madison correspondent of the In- 
dianapolis Republican July 3rd, said : " The liquor law works 
like a charm. Sorrow and sighing have fled away. Liquor 
can not be purchased illegally in this city." 

The Lafayette Courier of July 2, said- "What words can 
express the heartfelt gratitude of those whose happiness has 
been promoted by the enforcement of the prohibitory law?" 
And the Bloomington Times of July 3, said: "We have not 
seen a drunken man in town, or heard of a single fight or quar- 
rel since July? 12." Such was the testimony everywhere. The 
law worked like a charm everywhere; sorrow and sighing were 
diminished everywhere. Men came to town and returned so- 
ber who had not done so for years, and no class of men hailed 
it with more delight than that class whose appetites had such 
mastery over them that they could not resist the temptation 
when liquor was within easy reach. They had pleaded for 
the law, and they greatly rejoiced in the protection which it 
afforded. Drunken men were never seen in the smaller towns, 
and but few in the larger, and it is to this day the boast of sev- 
eral counties that not a single case of drunkenness was known 
during the hundred and forty-eight days of its continuance. 
Though one Beebe had procured himself to be nominally im- 
prisoned for the purpose of making a case before the courts, 
yet not even he had dared to sell openly. That he and oth- 
ers did sell clandestinely, none denied. But the law had 
placed the keeping of tippling houses on the same footing of 
other crimes, and sought to suppress, not to license and pro- 
tect it, and it succeeded as well as the law against adultery, 
and gambling, and larceny, and murder ever did. It was the 
fact that it was enforcable and was enforced, that arrayed 
against it the mighty powers of traffic. 

THE ANNULMENT OF THE LAW. 

There is some history about the annulment of this law that 
deserves to be rescued from oblivion before those who know 



298 APPENDIX. 



whereof they speak pass away. Even before the bill had 
passed, some preliminary steps to annul the law by the courts 
had been taken, and the echo of the cannon which was fired 
on the final passage — for everybody knew that it would pass 
that afternoon, and men by the hundreds, who could not get 
into the hall, had congregated in the open grounds north of 
the old state house with cannon, to give expression to their 
joy, and they fired round after round — the echo of that can- 
non had hardly died away before the most eminent legal tal- 
ent in the State had been employed to destroy, by the courts, 
what the people had so emphatically demanded at the ballot- 
box, and they at once began to prepare the case, and to pre- 
pare arguments for the courts ; so that when on the 12th of 
June it went into effect, their plans were already perfected 
and their arguments in readiness. 

In pursuance of the programme, on the 2nd day of July, 
one Rhoderick Beebe, the tony saloon-keeper of Indianapo- 
lis, openly manufactured and sold beer. He was forthwith 
arrested and taken before the mayor, and fined fifty dollars. 
Refusing to pay, he was hypothetically committed to jail, 
whereupon he sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the 
Marion court of Common Pleas. The court sustained the 
law. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court to try the 
validity of the law. It was midsummer, and the court had 
taken a recess for its summer vacation, but swift messengers 
were dispatched, and the court was brought together in less 
than a week. On the 8th all were in the city, and early on 
the 9th of July they were listening to the arguments which 
had been five months preparing on the part of the traffic, 
while the counsel for the state had to take hold of the case 
with but a few day's notice. 

The final result of the case is history. The attorneys for 
the State asked time to prepare their arguments and the court 
adjourned till the November term. But the traffic grew im- 
patient. The law was everywhere manufacturing public sen- 
timent in its behalf by its happy results, and the liquor sel- 
lers demanded an immediate action. Meanwhile Judge Per- 
kins had repeatedly foreshadowed his opinion. As early as 
the 12th of March he had written to the Richmond Jefferson- 
ia?i and published over his well-known initial "P", a tirade 
first, against Gov. Wright for signing the bill, then again at 



INDIANA. 299 



the law itself. The tone of the letter may be inferred from 
this one sentence: "It may be enforced here, but it could 
not be in any despotism in Europe without producing revolu- 
tion", and his conversations on the streets and everywhere 
abounded in such choice illustrations as this : 'Why the State 
might as well appoint a commission to do all the begetting of 
children and make eunuchs of the rest of us, as to appoint a 
commission to do all the liquor- selling'. In order to bring 
an influence to bear upon the subject, a meeting of the lead- 
ing Democrats of the State was called for the 27th of August. 
On the preceding Friday, Judge Perkins called his colleagues 
to meet in chambers on the 23rd and to decide the case. 
Judges Gookins and Stuart refused to come, as Judge Perkins 
had no right to make such a call. The Democratic meeting 
was held on the 27th, and a series of resolutions was adopted 
denunciatory of the law, and one urging the court to hurry 
up the decision in view of the demoralization of business as 
the law stood. About the first of November Judges Gookins 
and Stuart signified a desire to have certain points re-argued 
when the court should convene in November. 

This alarmed the traffic. It might mean a devided court, it 
mightmean many additional months of deliberation. Something 
must be done, and that at once. In this emergency a parley was 
held at the Bates House saloon on the night of the seventh of 
November. Whether Judge Perkins was present or not was 
never known outside of that little coterie; but the conclusions 
of that consultation were soon made public. Early on the 
morning of the eighth, a boy of the saloon by the name of 
Herman, openly violated the law. By those in waiting he 
was at once hustled before the mayor, where he was fined, and 
on refusing to pay the fine he was sent to jail. He was hardly 
in before he was out on a writ of habeas corpus, issued 
by Judge Perkins who sat in his judicial chair before two 
o'clock ready to try (?) the case. 

The attorneys for the liquor-sellers proposed to submit the 
case on the argument in the Beebe case, and the attorneys 
for the State, comprehending the situation at a glance, con- 
sented. The Judge repeated a few of his arguments against 
the law that had appeared months before in the Richmond 
[effersonia?i and had been often expressed on the streets, and 



300 APPENDIX. 



concluded by saying : " The law is void, let the prisoner be 
discharged." 

THE CONSEQUENCES. 

The news of this decision was telegraphed to "the boys" at 
once and reached every town then on the line of the tele- 
graph before four o'clock, and one universal carouse follow- 
ed, making the night hideous, and resulting in a murder be- 
fore midnight at Columbus. More drunken men were seen in 
Indiana within five hours after the decision was rendered,, 
than had been seen in five months of the existence of the 
law, and there has not been a day since, Sundays not except- 
ed, in which more drunkenness has not disgraced the state 
than during the entire period of one hundred and forty-eight 
days. For twenty-seven of those days the Marion county 
jail had not a single prisoner, and for seventeen other days, 
but one, and he was committed for an offense not connected 
with liquor — a state of affairs never known before or since. 

But the younger men will ask, was there no whisky sold 
and drank during those months ? Of course there was. No 
one ever expected any thing else. Those who could, in an- 
ticipation of the coming drought, had plentifully stocked 
their cellars, but those who did not do this and were skilled 
in the methods, still found means to get it. Cincinnati, Chi- 
cago and Louisville were connected by rail with Indiana, and 
there was no prohibition in those cities, hence by one device 
or another liquor was obtained from those outside places as 
well as legally at home. Many of these devices were curious 
enough. John L. Robinson, of Rushville, then the United 
States Marshall, and the managing editor of The Jacksonian y 
and for many years the Democratic Congressman from that 
district, ordered a keg from Cincinnati for his private use, 
and it evaded the search, seizure and confiscation clause by 
being marked 'Lard Oil', and the poor man was ever after- 
wards known as John Lardoil Robinson. 

But men of less money and even less cunning found means 
of getting liquor. Why should they not? With all our bolts 
and bars and burglar proof appliances there are men who 
break into our houses and rob us. They make the business a 
study, but the millions do not get in, however much they may 



INDIANA. 30I 



desire to. Everybody knows that men will go to extremes for 
whisky that are unknown in almost everything else. Men will 
swear falsely for whisky and in the interest of the whisky sel- 
ler, who would not to save the life of a wife or child. Men 
will rob their families of food, take even their wife's shawl or 
shoes and pawn them for whisky, so utterly overpowering are 
their depraved appetites. Does any sane man imagine that 
such men can not find whisky under any law? More than that, 
prohibitory laws, when analyzed and properly understood, aim 
only at suppressing these schools of vice known as dram- 
shops. If, in accomplishing this it becomes necessary to make 
more difficult the procurement of liquors for the less harmful 
use of them, the fault lies more in the stubbornness of the traf- 
fic than in the purpose of the law. Prohibition is simply a 
general name applied to that class of temperance legislation 
which contemplates the absolute suppression of public tip- 
pling by whatever measures may be necessary. If, therefore, 
it shall become necessary to wholly forbid the manufacture 
and sale that this may be accomplished, then, all that, and 
more, may be expected; and, as slavery defied all modifica- 
tions, and required utter abolition, so, probably will the liquor 
traffic. 

There were several cases of " search, seizure, confiscation 
and destruction" under the law. The lower courts, nearly 
all, or quite all, enforced the law. Notably among these was 
the Common Pleas Court of Tippecanoe county, presided 
•over by Hon. John Pettit, one of the best lawyers Indiana 
ever had, and afterwards a member of the Supreme Court, 
elected by the Democratic party. The number of appeals 
from his court, which will be observed in the decisions 
of that period which follows, is thus accounted for. The 
Legislature of 1859 which repealed the law, provided for re- 
imbursing all who had suffered in its enforcement. 



302 APPENDIX. 



ILLINOIS. 



LICENSE SYSTEM. 



Illinois was admitted as a state in 1818. The first temper- 
ance law was passed in February, 1819, during the session of 
the first State legislature, and provided for a license fee to be 
fixed by the commissioners, not to exceed twelve dollars per 
annum. The penalty for selling liquor or keeping a public 
house of entertainment without such license was one dollar 
per day. License to be granted for one year only. License 
to be revoked, if drunkenness, disorder or gaming were allowed* 
Good entertainment for man and horse were to be provided, 
under penalty of five dollars for failure. Bond to be given, 
with security if required, not to exceed $200, that licensee 
should be of good behavior at all times and obey all laws in 
force relating to the business. The sale to be drank on or 
adjacent to the premises; or to companies of slaves, servants 
or others, or in quantities less than one quart of spirituous or 
two gallons of malt liquors, was prohibited under penalty of 
twelve dollars. The law also forbade the sale to minors or the 
harboring of minors or bond-servants, and provided that the 
commissioners should fix a table of "rates" which should be 
posted conspicuously, and fixed a fine of $20 for violation of 
such rates. To prevent devices for evading the law nearly all 
kinds of liquors known were specified and the term "strong 
water 4 ' was added, and to cover every possible locality the 
terms "shelters," "places" and "woods" were included among 
the localities coming under the inhibition of the law. This 
law passed by a Legislature democratic in both houses, and 
was approved by Governor Shadrack Bond, a Democrat. 

The second law was passed February 14th, 1823, legislature 
overwhelmingly democratic, Governor, Edmund Coles, anti- 
slavery democrat. It was entitled "An Act to prevent" etc. 
It prohibited sales to Indians, made all accounts for liquors 
greater than fifty cents void, and prohibited the courts from 
taking jurisdiction in such cases. It also prohibited the li- 
censing of any "tippling shop, commonly called a grocery," 
and required applicants for license to sell liquor to give secur- 
ity that they would also keep "meat and lodging for at least 



ILLINOIS. 303 



four persons over and above his common family, and stabling 
for their horses." This act prevented the keeping of saloons 
as they are now kept, the inn, or tavern idea only being recog- 
nized. 

In 1833 an act was passed making the sale of cider in less 
quantity than two gallons unlawful. Legislature Democratic. 
Governor, John Reynolds, democrat. 

In 1835 a mild high license measure was passed, making 
the license not more than $50 taking into consideration "the 
stand where the 'tavern 1 was located." The dram-shop idea 
was not recognized. Legislature democratic; Governor, Joseph 
Duncan, democrat. 

In 1837 the cider law of 1833 was repealed and all '* citi- 
zens of the State" were authorized to sell cider and beer in 
any quantity. Legislature democratic ; Governor Duncan, 
democrat. The Governor and his council of revision, the 
Supreme Judges, refused to approve the bill, but it became a 
law through the neglect to return it with the Governor's ob- 
jections within the ten days prescribed by law. 

In addition to these statutes, specifically aimed against the 
traffic, the criminal code, revised 1833, made it unlawful to 
sell in quantities less than one quart, without first having ob- 
tained license, and inflict a fine of $10 for each offense. A 
like fine for selling to a slave or servant without the master's 
consent ; and sale to Indians absolutely prohibited. 

March 3rd, 1845, Legislature democratic, Governor Thomas 
Ford, democrat, a law was passed making the license fee not 
less than $25 nor more than $300 and requiring bond in $500 
to keep orderly house and not permit gaming or riotous con- 
duct. The principle of local option was introduced by con- 
ferring upon the president and trustees of incorporated towns 
exclusive authority to grant or withhold license, but requiring 
the license money to be paid into the county treasury. The 
law still held to the "grocery" idea, but defined a grocery 
to be " a place where spiritous or vinous liquors are retailed 
in less quantities than one quart." The penalty was a fine of 
ten dollars for each offense, and the law prohibited the sale 
to negroes or Indians under penalty of $10 and $20 respect- 
ively, and if a sale was made to a minor or servant the seller 
was fined $3 and forfeited the price of the liquor sold for the 
first and second offenses and for the third offense a fine of Si 2. 



304 APPENDIX. 



forfeiture of license and the seller forever rendered incapable 
of keeping a grocery in the State. 

THE PROHIBITORY LAW OF 1851. 

February ist, 185 1, the Democratic Legislature passed an 
act prohibiting the sale of vinous, spirituous or mixed liquors 
in quantities less than one quart, or in any quantity to be 
drank on the premises, and fixing the penalty at $25 for each 
offense. The giving away of liquors was declared a sale 
within the meaning of the act. All license laws were repealed. 
The sale to a person under 18 years of age in any quantity 
was punishable by fine not less than $30 nor more than $100. 
The penalties might be enforced by indictment or action for 
debt, the latter provision being intended to do away with the 
delay of an indictment and render the enforcement of the law 
more speedy and certain. The judge was required to furnish 
the act to every grand jury, and the law was made to include 
incorporated towns and cities, anything in their charters 
to the contrary notwithstanding. The law was approved by 
Augustus C. French, democrat, governor. This law was in 
force two years and six days, during which time there was no 
legal sale of liquor in Illinois. 

Feb. 7th, 1853, the legislature, largely democratic, Joel A. 
Matteson, of Will county, governor, repealed this law, and on 
Feb. 1 2th restored all laws pertaining to license which were 
in force at the time the prohibitory law was passed. This 
was a long step backward, but some allowance must be made 
for the legislature of 1853. It was composed of the barba- 
rians who passed the black laws of Illinois, and marks the 
blackest era in the State. The law restoring the license 
laws provided that the fee should not be less than $50 nor 
more than $300. 

Feb. 22nd, 1861, the legislature passed the law prohibiting 
the sale of intoxicants or keeping open of bar rooms on any 
election day. There have also been several minor acts pass- 
ed at different times, prohibiting the sales on Sunday, or at 
Fairs or within two miles of same, at elections, at camp meet- 
ings or within one mile of the same. The latter law is a part 
of the criminal code. The law relating to the organization of 
cities and villages, found in paragraph 46, revised statutes of 



ILLINOIS. 305 



1874, authorizes city councils in cities and the president and 
board of trustees in villages to license, regulate or prohibit 
the sale of intoxicating drinks, to determine the amount of 
the license fee, and limits the term of the license to the mu- 
nicipal year. This law is subject to any general state law 
concerning license which may be in force. There have also 
been special charters granted to certain cities conferring 
similar powers. 

THE ACT OF 1872. 

The year 1872 marks a decided advance in temperance 
legislation, as it was in that year that the law sometimes mis- 
takenly termed the "Reddick" law was passed. The law was 
prepared under the direction of Hon. H. W. Austin, member 
of the house of representatives from the third district of Chi- 
cago. It was drafted by O. H. Horton, Esq., of Chicago, at 
Mr. Austin's request, and embraces the principal features of 
the Adair law of Ohio. Mr. Austin introduced this bill in the 
select committee on temperance in March, 187 1. The meas- 
ure met with favor in the committee, and in order to secure 
its more certain and speedy passage, it was thought best to 
have it pass the Senate first. A printed copy of the bill was 
taken by Hon. Wm. Reddick, senator from LaSalle, from the 
House, and presented by him to the body of which he was a 
member. This was the only connection Mr. Reddick had 
with the bill, except to vote in favor of its passage, and he 
never claimed to be the author of the law or that it should 
bear his name. To Mr. Austin the state is indebted for the 
law and whatever of excellence it contains. 

As before stated, Mr. Austin introduced the bill in the com- 
mittee in March, 1871. It was presented in the house by the 
chairman of the committee, March 3, read a first time and 
printed. It remained in committee of the whole until the ad- 
journed session in November, and on the 27th of that month 
was introduced in the senate, which body it passed, with very 
slight amendment, December 19, 1871, by a vote of 40 in fa- 
vor to 5 against it. In the house it was debated for three 
days, when it passed January n, 1872, by a vote of 114 to 48. 
Both houses were strongly Eepublican, but the bill passed by 
a decidedly non-partisan vote, Democrats and Republicans 



306 APPENDIX. 



supporting it. On the 13th of January it was approved by the 
Republican Governor, John M. Palmer, and went into effect 
the first of July following. The main provisions of the law are 
as follows: 

Sec. 1, Makes selling without license unlawful; requires 
bond in $3,000 for all damages that may result to person, prop- 
erty, or means of support by reason of sale under license, and 
provides that such bond may be sued and recovered upon. 

Sec. 2. Forbids sale to minors, intoxicated persons or 
habitual drunkards. 

Sec. 3. Makes all places where liquors are sold contrary 
to the provisions of the act, public nuisances, and orders their 
abatement as such. 

Sec. 4. Provides that any person may take charge of an 
intoxicated person, and makes the one who caused such in- 
toxication liable in action for debt for reasonable compensa- 
tion for such care, and two dollars per day in addition for ev- 
ery day such person shall be kept on account of such intox- 
ication. 

Sec. 5. Makes seller of liquor and owner of property 
where sold liable for damages, and gives right of action to all 
persons damaged, including married women who are given 
femme sole right to bring suit. Also, provides that suit may be 
brought by any appropriate action in any court having com- 
petent jurisdiction. 

Sec. 6. Makes penalty for violation of first or second sec- 
tions fine not less than $20 nor more than $100, and impris- 
onment in county jail not less than ten nor more than thirty 
days, with costs of prosecution, and for violation of third sec- 
tion, fine not less than $50 nor more than $100, with costs, 
and imprisonment not less than twenty nor more than fifty 
days. It also orders places in the latter case to be abated 
and shut up by order of the court until convicted person gives 
bond and security in $1000 not to sell contrary to law, and to 
pay all fines, costs and damages assessed. It also provides 
that fines may be enforced separate from imprisonment be- 
fore justices of the peace. 

Sec. 7. Makes giving away, or any other device to evade 
the same, as selling. 

Sec. 8. Provides that all real estate and personal property 
of the seller not exempt under the homestead laws of the State, 



MASSACHUSETTS. 307 



or from levy under judgment and execution, shall be liable 
for fines, costs at the rate of $500 for one year for the privi- 
lege of keeping a dramshop provided, that in all cases where 
the license is for the sale of malt liquors only, the fee shall 
not be less than $150 per year. The penalty, bonds, petitions, 
etc., do not materially differ from those provided in the laws 
of 1873 an d 1874. 

The opinion is somewhat general that Illinois has a local 
option law, but a careful perusal of this abstract will show 
that such is not the case. The license laws simply say that 
the proper authorities may (not shall) issue licenses. It is thus 
left optional with them, and the sale of liquors may be pre- 
vented by electing boards and councils themselves opposed 
to license. 



MASSACHUSETTS. 



CLASSIFIED LICENSES. 



f^fforts to "regulate" alcoholism began with the early set- 
tlers in Massachusetts. Men were fined heavily, imprisoned 
and "whipt" for being "drunck" in 1629. In 1637 it was an 
offense to remain in a licensed drinking house "longer than 
necessary occations" and to be punished with a fine of "20 shil- 
lings." In 1639 there was a law forbidding "the drinking of 
healths," because "it was an occation of much wast of the 
good creatures," etc. In 1645 inkeepers were fined "five 
shillings for suffering any to be drunck in their houses, or to 
drink excessively, or to continue tippling above the space of 
half an hour." It was "excessive drinking when above half a 
pint was allowed at one time to one person to drink." 

These and many other "regulations," seeking to secure men 
of standing and good judgment to deal out the liquors so as 
to avoid excess, fencing with lestrictive laws proceeded upon 
the conviction that alcoholic liquors were a potent remedy 
for human ills. This was not questioned by anybody. Excess 
was a crime in the stricter days of the long period up to 1S36 



308 APPENDIX. 



or a fault which however was condoned by its universality 
during most of these years. In spite of all regulation drunk- 
enness increased until it became almost universal. Few adult 
persons did not drink, and occasionally to excess, and this 
included ministers and women. In spite of the most stringent 
license regulations the quantity of distilled liquors drank in 
the years 1790 to 1830 inclusive probably averaged seven gal- 
lons to every man, woman and child, besides enormous quan- 
tities of cider, beer and wine. And all these years as earnest 
and honest men as history has any account of, did their best 
to suppress "intemperance." Their uniform defeat arose 
from one cause. They did not recognize alcohol as in its 
own nature a destructive poison. 

It would be monotonous to recite the "regulations" at- 
tempted during two hundred years, all of which were efforts 
to retain a cause and prevent the effects, a style of "reform" 
still in favor with many people. But gradually it began to 
dawn upon the leaders that the trouble was the alcohol, and 
whether in "rum" or in "cider" made little matter. The re- 
sult of this conviction was the total abstinence action of 1836 
at Saratoga, As early as 1823 Henry Ware had said : "There 
is no man or body of men who can strike at the root but the 
legislature of a nation." As the truth began to permeate the 
better classes, the demand for prohibitive legislaiion grew. 
The county commissioners up to 1835 had been appointed 
officers and they had entire control of the licenses. This 
year the office was made elective, and the question of license 
entered into the election. In many towns the "no-license 
party" triumphed, and thus the question assumed much the 
shape it has now : 'total abstinence for the individual and 
Prohibition for the State". 

On the Fourth of July, 1838, the fifteen gallon law went in- 
to effect. No person except licensed apothecaries and physi- 
cians might sell less than fifteen gallons of spirituous liquors, 
"all of which was to be carried away at one time." The law 
was violently opposed by the dealers and their sympathizers, 
and remained in force only a year and a half. But the peo- 
ple rallied, elected no license commissioners, and it is affirm- 
ed that from 1841 to 1852 no licenses were issued in Boston, 
and very few in the State. It was a period when the license 
system had fallen under general condemnation. In almost 



MASSACHUSETTS. 309 



every State where opportunity was afforded to vote there 
were heavy majorities against the license system, and Ohio 
and Michigan incorporated their condemnation in their con- 
stitutions. In New York, at a general election, April, 1846, 
more than five-sixths of the towns and cities gave large majo- 
rities against license. This was the prevailing sentiment 
from 1845 to 1856, when the whole question was over-slaugh- 
ed by the "anti-slavery agitation." 

PROHIBITORY LAWS, 
BY REV. A. A. MINER, D. D. L. L.fD. 

The first prohibitory statute in Massachusetts was enacted 
in 1852 by a Democratic, Whig, and Free Soil Legislature, 
George S. Boutwell, (democrat) governor. Having been pro- 
nounced unconstitutional in some details, it was repealed in 
1853. Thereupon, General Benjamin F. Butler was employed 
by friends of temperance to draft a bill which was enacted 
into law in 1855 by a legislature representing the American 
party; Henry J. Gardner, Governor. 

The law was attacked at every point, withstood every legal 
assault upon it, was sustained in the highest court, and was 
retained upon the statute books till 1868. In 1867, Judge 
Sawyer, then District Attorney of Suffolk county, pronounced 
it the strongest law that can be made, and declared that it 
was executed — 600 of the strongest dealers, within the space 
of four weeks, having pledged themselves to leave the busi- 
ness. 

During all those twelve years, the Republican party, as a 
party, trembled before it like an aspen leaf — lacking equally 
the courage to repeal it and the manliness to execute. The 
government of Boston, then in the hands of the Republicans, 
was specially open to censure. By measures studied and 
treacherous, it continuously and persistently nullified the law. 
Several members of the Board of Aldermen took the utmost 
care to select liquor sellers exclusively for the list of names 
whence jurors were to be drawn, and when assailed therefor 
by citizens, justified themselves on the ground that they could 
not say that they were not "free from all legal disabilities." 
They thus passed by citizens about whom none would raise 



APPENDIX. 



a question, and selected those who at the next turn of the 
wheel might themselves become the victims of the law. By 
such means there were sure to be some liquor dealers, all vio- 
lators of the law, on every panel — a procedure as flagrant and 
indecent as would be the selection of counterfeiters to try 
counterfeiters, forgers to try forgers, or thieves to try thieves. 

Sometimes the Mayor would make a most ostentatious effort 
to execute the law, and on its failure would declare its execu- 
tion impracticable. The Hon. Alexander W. Rice furnished 
a conspicuous example of this. We put hundreds of cases in- 
to court, very few of which were ever tried, and those before 
jurors selected toqprevent conviction. Of course, these efforts 
were futile, as they were intended to be — proved by the utter 
neglect of the seizure clause of the law, in the use of which 
the heaviest dealer in the city could have been broken down 
in a week. His honor has made several efforts since his ad- 
ministrations as mayor of the city and governor of the Com- 
monwealth to repair his temperance record, but with very in- 
different success. 

After years of vain endeavor to secure an honest and pa- 
triotic execution of the law on the part of the city authorities, 
the temperance people appealed to the State to create a me- 
tropolitan police, and thus itself attend to the execution of its 
own laws. After repeated effort it became probable such a 
bill would be enacted, whereupon His excellency, John A. 
Andrew, then Governor of the Commonwealth, and one of the 
most renowned governors we have ever had, consulted with 
his friends in the legislature, warned them of the political 
dangers attending their proposed action, presented them a 
bill for a State constabulary force which he would prefer to a 
metropolitan force, and which was enacted into law. 

The constabulary force thus created, which should have 
been aided by the ordinary police of the city, as the law re- 
quired, was opposed and obstructed by it, and for some time 
accomplished very little in the chief centers of population; 
while in all the rural regions of the State the traffic was sub- 
stantially at an end. 

The friends of temperance did not sleep. They pushed the 
constable to handle his State force with more vigor and pre- 
cision. These efforts were not in vain. In the latter part of 
1865 and through 1866, much good work was done, though 



MASSACHUSETTS. 3 1 1 



the authorities of both State and city exerted quite other than 
a helpful influence. In proportion as the State force showed 
itself efficient, it was the subject of the most malignant at- 
tacks. Its action was severely felt by many dealers in the 
city. Their liquors were seized, condemned by the courts, 
and poured into the streets. Many thousands of dollars worth 
were thus destroyed, many dealers utterly crushed, and the 
whole fraternity were in the utmost consternation. 

At length the plan was devised by the liquor dealers 7 com- 
mittee of getting the merchants of Boston to petition for a re- 
peal of the prohibitory law and the enactment of a license 
law, professedly for the greater restraint of the traffic, but 
really to remove the restraint already crippling the traffic. 

This plan was acted upon in 1867. A. large body of profes- 
sedly most Christian merchants, with the Hon. Alpheus Hardy 
at their head, sent their petition to the Legislature. It was 
referred to a joint special committee of thirteen, who occu- 
pied the representatives' hall six weeks in hearings on the 
subject. The then ex-Gov. John A. Andrew and the Hon. 
Linus Child were counsel for the petitioners. They were 
faithful to their clients. Nominally employed by the mer- 
chants, they were really in the employ of the liquor dealers, 
who paid Mr. Andrew fifteen thousand dollars, and Mr. Child 
•five thousand dollars, respectively, for their services. 
The Hon. William B. Spooner and the Rev. A. A. Miner, D. 
D., then president of Tuft's College conducted the case for 
the remonstrants, without fear or reward. They summoned 
witnesses to prove the facts above stated, and those witnesses 
were some of the liquor dealers who subscribed the money, 
and the refusal to let them testify was a confession of the 
truth of the facts alleged. The petitioners summoned a 
hundred and twenty-five ex-officials, dignitaries, and clergy- 
men, almost every one of whom confessed that he used wines 
or liquors as beverages, and almost all of whom chafed more 
or less at being questioned. The remonstrants called about 
seventy-five, all of whom where total abstainers. The com- 
mittee submitted three reports, and the Legislature retained 
the law by a very large majority, ninety men in the house and 
senate, uncommitted at the opening of the hearing, voting 
against a change. Thus prohibition triumphed, and the foes 
of good order were discomfitted. 



312 APPENDIX. 



In the autumn of 1867 the Personal Liberty League, a dark 
lantern association, was organized in all the cities and prin- 
cipal towns, controlled the caucuses, packed the Legislature, 
republican still, and in 1868 repealed the prohibitory law 
and enacted a license law. This repeal by a Legislature 
largely republican, Hon. Alexander H. Bullock, governor, 
was a surprise. It was not believed that the party dare re- 
peal it. A year of free liquor ensued. In the autumn of 1868, 
the people rallied, nominated Hon. William Claflin, republi- 
can, a total abstainer and prohibitionist, for governor, and 
triumphantly elected him, with a senate and house to 
correspond. 

There was great satisfaction among temperance men. 
Everybody looked for the restoration of the law of 1855, 
repealed the year before. In name it was restored ; in fact, 
it was destroyed. The governor had no sooner taken the oath 
of office than he proceeded to one of the most treacherous 
acts from which the cause of prohibition in our State has 
ever suffered. He recommended the restoration of the pro- 
hibitory law, but counselled that cider be exempted from its 
operations. He thus broke the principle of the law, furnished 
a cover for the sale of all sorts of liquors, and made detection 
in the highest degree difficult. 

One of the leading Republican papers of the State, The 
Daily Evening Traveller, of Boston, up to that time entirely 
sound on prohibition, took ground with the governor in a 
series of articles written by a leading member of the State 
central Republican committee. The Republican Legislature 
of that year, 1869, followed the counsel of the governor, and 
began the work of debauching the prohibitory sentiment of 
the State. The next year, all fermented liquors were exempted 
from the operation of the law, the constabulary force found 
its work increasingly difficult, and ceased to be handled with 
either integrity or efficiency. iVfter various unimportant 
changes, the law was made prohibitory again, but left unexe- 
cuted, and was replaced in 1875 by our present local option 
law. All this was done by a studied, stealthy, persistent effort 
to place the question of prohibition in such an attitude that, 
whatever else it might do, it could not be made an issue in 
the politics of the State. The deadening influence of this 
condition of things is apparent. The State is disintegrated. 



MASSACHUSETTS. 313 



The rural districts, by their "No-license" vote, drive the traf- 
fickers from their midst, who fly to the city where license, at 
a moderate cost, can be had for the asking, and where, if they 
prefer, they can with impunity sell without a license, since 
the law which it was assumed public opinion would sustain 
and execute, is substantially prostrate. 

Some statistics of arrests and prosecutions for the license 
years 1875 — 77 were presented by Governor Alexander H. 
Rice in contrast with those of the last year of nomi- 
nal prohibition, to the disadvantage of the latter; but Col. 
Carroll D. Wright, by whom the statistics were gathered at 
the command of the governor, refused to be held responsible 
for any such inference. He knew that the authorities execu- 
ted the laws far better in the license than in the prohibitory 
period, and that during 1875 — 77 many men out of employ- 
ment had no means to procure liquor. Besides, it was ascer- 
tained that the number of arrests for drunkenness, during 
those years, was very exactly in the inverse ratio to the activ- 
ity of the Reform Clubs in the various cities and towns of the 
State. 

In surveying the history of the republican party in Massa- 
chusetts, I have no hesitation in saying that, as a party, it is 
entitled to little else than condemnation in its conduct to- 
wards the temperence cause. It found the strongest law pos- 
sible when it came into power. It has wrestled with a good 
voting prohibitory majority in the State and overthrown it. 
When it has not been treacherous it has been timid, not only 
leaving the law unexecuted, but handling the police of the 
city in ways to prevent its execution. It is, and ever has 
been, in full complicity with the opulant lawbreakers of the 
State. 

THE PRESENT LAW. 

The present law of Massachusetts may be termed a very 
stringent license law. It provides for licenses of six different 
classes as follows : 

First Class : To sell liquors of any kind to be drunk on the 
premises. 

Second Class : To sell malt liquors and cider and light 



314 APPENDIX. 



wines, containing not more than 15 per cent of alcohol, to be 
drunk on the premises. 

Third Class : To sell malt liquors and cider to be drunk on 
the premises. 

Fourth Class : To sell liquors of any kind, not to be drunk 
on the premises. 

Fifth Class : To sell malt liquors, cider and light wines, 
containing not more than 15 per cent of alcohol, not to be 
drunk on the premises. 

Sixth Class : To druggists and apothecaries to sell liquor 
of any kind for medicinal, mechanical and chemical purposes 
only and to such persons only as may certify in writing for 
what use they want it. 

The fees for licenses are : for the first class not less than 
$100, nor more than $1000 ; second or third class, not less 
than $50, nor more than $250 ; fourth class, not less than 
$50, nor more than $500, provided, that a distiller who distils 
not over fifty barrels per year, shall pay $50 and one who 
distils over fifty not less than $300 nor more than $500. For 
a license of the fifth class, not less than $50 nor more than 
$$00, provided, that a brewer shall pay not less than $200 nor 
more than $400. For a license of the sixth class, one dollar. 

Makers of cider and native wines may sell the same without 
license, not to be drunk on the premises. Druggists may sell 
pure alcohol. Every druggist must register date, person, kind, 
quantity and price at every sale, and the purpose for which 
purchased; register always to be open to inspection by proper 
officers. Importers may sell in original casks, or in casks not 
less than required of importers under U. S. laws without li- 
cense. License can only issue in towns and cities which so 
vote at the annual municipal election or town meeting, and 
run only until the first of the next May. Notice of applica- 
tion for license must be published, or posted ten days before 
the licensing board can act thereon. In case the owner of 
adjacent real estate files an objection before the ten days ex- 
pire, no license can issue. 

The mayor and aldermen may refuse to issue license to par- 
ties they deem unfit. Every license forbids the sale on the 
Lord's Day, (except inn-holders to guests) also, between the 
hours of twelve at night and six in the morning on week days; 
forbids the sale of any but liquors of good, standard quality 



MASSACHUSETTS. 315 



free from adulteration; to a drunkard, intoxicated person, or 
one known to have been intoxicated within six months pre- 
ceding; or to a minor, either for his own use, the use of his 
parent, or any other person. All disorder, indecency and 
gaming is forbidden either on the licensed premises or prem- 
ises connected therewith by interior communication. Licen- 
ses of the second, third or fifth class forbid that other liquors 
than those specified be kept on the premises. Licenses of the 
first, second and third classes are subject to the condition that 
the licensee shall not keep a public bar, and shall hold li- 
cense only as an inn-holder, and the room in which liquors 
are to be sold shall be specified. Licenses must be displayed 
where they can be easily read. The violation of any of these 
conditions works forfeiture of the license. 

The board granting the license may require the permanent 
closing of all entrances except from the public street. No 
blinds, screens, or other obstructions are allowed, and any ob- 
struction which interferes with a clear view of the interior 
makes the license void. Bond is required in the sum of $1000, 
to be signed by surety worth $2000, property to be designated 
and statement kept on file with the bond. 

One fourth of the license money must be paid to the State 
by the treasurer of the city or town. Any authorized officer 
may enter premises at any time to see how the business is 
conducted and may take samples of liquors for analysis, the 
town or city to pay for said samples if found of good quality 
and unadulterated. Mayors and aldermen of a city and se- 
lectmen of a town may declare a license forfeited after due 
notice, and if so declared the holder is disqualified to receive 
license for one year, and if he own the premises no license to 
be exercised on said premises can issue for the balance of 
the term. 

Any person taking liquors to sell, or to be sold into a town 
in which licenses are not issued, forfeits the liquors to 
the State. 

Whoever violates any provision of his license or of this law 
is liable to a fine not less than $50 nor more than $500, or to 
jail not less than one or more than six months, or both, and 
the licensee also forfeits his license and becomes disqualified 
to hold license for one year, and no license can be issued for 
the premises, if he be the owner, for the rest of the term. 



316 APPENDIX. 



Any person injured in person, property or means of support 
by an intoxicated person, has right of action against any per- 
son, who, in whole or in part caused such intoxication, and 
against the owner of the premises unless the occupant holds a 
license. Persons selling to minors or allowing minors to 
loiter on premises are liable in the sum of $100 for each of- 
fense, to the parent or guardian of such minor. 

The husband, wife, parent, child, guardian or employer of 
any person having the habit of drinking to excess, may notify 
any person in writing not to sell to person having such habit, 
and if persons so notified sell to such person within twelve 
months, the person giving the notice may recover in any sum 
not less than $100, nor more than $500, provided, that an em- 
ployer giving such notice shall not recover unless injured in 
person or property. 

Any liquor containing more than three per cent of alco- 
hol is declared intoxicating liquor. 

Other sections of the law provide for the inspection of li- 
quors and against their adulteration. The law is very strong 
and explicit on this point. The seizure of concealed ? liquors 
is also provided for, and such liquors may be forfeited to the 
State. 

A mayor, alderman, selectman, sheriff, or deputy, chief of 
police or deputy, city marshal or deputy, police officer or 
constable may arrest violators of the law without warrant and 
seize liquors, vessels and implements in their possession, and 
it is made the duty of these officers to enforce penalties 
against offenders. If they neglect so to do for two weeks af- 
ter being notified in writing that the law is being violated and 
the names of witnesses are given them, any person, who makes 
complaint thereafter is entitled to all fines collected for such 
violation. 

All liquors kept for sale and the implements and vessels 
used in selling contrary to law are declared common nuisan- 
ces ; also all club rooms used for the purpose of selling or 
dispensing liquors to member or others, and those who keep 
or maintain such rooms are liable to a fine not less than $50 
nor more than $100, or imprisonment in the house of correc- 
tion not less than three months nor more than twelve. 

Amendments provide that no license shall be granted for 
sale within four hundred feet of any public school ; provide 



MASSACHUSETTS. 3 1 7 



for the inspection and seizure of liquors ; forbid tampering 
with samples taken, and require common victualers having 
license to close their places from midnight until five in the 
morning. 

Other amendments add to the stringency of the Sunday 
and gaming laws ; the restrictions upon licensed victualers 
provide against giving credit for drink, food or livery hire to 
students in educational institutions, and against selling liquor 
or beer without license at any show or exhibition. 

There is also a law in Massachusetts against drunkenness. 
Any person getting intoxicated by the voluntary use of liquor, 
may, for the first offense, be fined not more than one dollar 
and costs, and be imprisoned until such fine and costs are 
paid, not exceeding ten days. A male person for the second 
offense may be fined not more than five dollars and costs or 
imprisoned not more than two months. If he has been con- 
victed twice in the twelve months preceding, he may be fined 
not more than ten dollars or imprisoned not more than one 
year. 

If a woman has been convicted twice within twelve months 
she may be fined not exceeding ten dollars, or imprisoned in 
the reformatory prison for women not less than one or more 
than two years, or, in any place provided by law for common 
drunkards, not more than one year. 

It would seem from a perusal of these laws, that if there 
were any virtue at all in license laws and other so-called 
restrictive and regulative measures, it should be manifest in 
Massachusetts, yet we find that according to the Census and 
Revenue reports of 1880 that State had one saloon to every 
sixty-four voters, a proportion equalled by only fifteen other 
States, while the adjoining State of Vermont, with a prohibi- 
tory lav/ moderately well enforced had but one saloon to 201 
voters, and South Carolina with such Prohibition as she could 
secure through local option had but one saloon to each 246 
voters. These figures speak volumes. 



318 APPENDIX. 



CONNECTICUT. 



LICENSE WITH LOCAL OPTION FEATURES APPLYING TO TOWNS. 



"An interesting incident," says Doctor Dorchester, "shows 
the state of public sentiment in this colony at a very early 
date. A vessel, touching at Norwalk, prepared to land a 
barrel of rum. The civil authorities and principal inhabit- 
ants gathered and forbade its landing. They said to the cap- 
tain of the vessel, 'You shall never land it on our shores. 
What ! a whole barrel of rum ! It will corrupt our morals 
and be our undoing." In 1650 a heavy duty was laid on all 
imported liquors and an execise tax on home manufacture. 
Drunkenness was fined five shillings for first and ten for sec- 
ond offense. Sellers were fined if they allowed men to get 
drunk in their houses. 

According to Rev. Geo. A. Calhoun D. D., as early as 180a 
there was extreme poverty, caused by drink. He says, in 
North Coventry, an average town' for that period (1800 to 
1820). "Only four floors had carpets on them, but four hou- 
ses painted white, and not more than ten four-wheeled vehic- 
les in the town. Even whitewash on the wall was rare. Re- 
al poverty was the cause. The gains of the people were con- 
sumed in intoxicating drink. At least one man of every score 
became a drunkard, and not a few women were given to the 
habits of intemperance. " 

A prohibitory law was passed in 1854, the legislature at the 
time being democratic and anti-Neb. The present law is a 
mixture of local option and license, and is only enforced on the 
surface, even in no-license towns. It is considered an obstacle 
in the way of prohibition, deluding many honest men with 
"the mirage" or non-partisan local option work. 

License was granted upon application signed by applicant and 
endorsed by five electors and tax-payers of the town within 
the limits of which the business carried on under such license 
is to be transacted. A bond of $300 required. License 
for not less than $100, nor more than $500. 

Sec. 7 of the law in force is as follows : 

"No spirituous and intoxicating liquors shall be sold, ex- 



CONNECTICUT. 319 



changed, or given away in any building belonging to or under 
the control of the State, or of any county or town in the 
State ; nor shall any license be granted for the sale of spirit- 
uous and intoxicating liquors in any building, except a hotel, 
when said building is also used as a dwelling-house, unless 
access from the portion of said building used as a dwelling to 
the portion appropriated to the sale of spirituous and intox- 
icating liquors is effectually closed, and if any way of access 
from the other portions of said building to the portion used 
for the sale of such liquors shall be opened after said license 
is granted, such license shall thereupon be revoked by the 
county commissioners. No license for the sale of spirituous 
and intoxicating liquors shall be granted to any sheriff, 
deputy- sheriff, constable, grand juror, justice of the peace, 
prosecuting agent, or to any female who is not known to the 
county commissioners to be a woman of good repute ; or to 
any female who is a member of the household of any person 
to whom a license has been refused, or by whom a license 
has been forfeited, or to any person keeping a house of ill- 
fame, or a house reputed to be a house of ill-fame, or to any 
person keeping any gambling place of any description." 

Severe penalties are prescribed for the violation of any of 
the provisions of the law. 

From a recent report of an important commitee of the Con- 
ference of the Congregational Church, of Connecticut, I take 
the following, which may seem to indicate the condition of 
affairs in that State with reference to the liquor traffic: 

3. The statistics of crime in the State since the dram-shop 
was legalized, justify the demand for its suppression. In the 
first year of the operation of the law of 1872, commitments for 
crime in the State went up from 2,986 to 4,481, and for drunk- 
enness, from 1,470 to 2,125. The commitments of the last crim- 
inal year, as reported to the present General Assembly, were, 
for all crimes, 6,416; and for drunkenness, including "com- 
mon drunkards," 2,905. Comparing these figures with those 
of the year before the legalization of the dram-shop, viz: total 
commitments 2,905, and drunkenness 1,290, we have an in 



320 APPENDIX. 



crease of all crimes of 125 per cent,, in a period of fifteen 
years. And the dram-shop is the chief fountain and minister 
of crim^. Ought it not to be suppressed? 



RHODE ISLAND. 



A prohibitory law was passed by a democratic legislature 
in 1852, declared unconstitutional in 1853, re-enacted in 1855 
and ratified by the people. It has since been repealed and 
the state is now under license law. It is opitional with the 
authorities to grant or withhold license, as they see fit, and 
thus far the law posesses a local option feature. The license 
fee is from $150 to $300. In most places where license is 
refused it is difficult to obtain liquor. In others the law is 
entirely ignored. 

I append here an extract taken from the annual address of 
Hon. George P. Wetmore, governor of Rhode Island 1887 : 

"All things considered, I think it may be said that as good 
results have been obtained in its enforcement as could have 
reasonably been anticipated, and as evidence of this I 
may cite the official records of the police departments of the 
cities of Providence and Newport, whose statements, which I 
assume to be correct, indicate a large reduction of drunken- 
ness, and of that class of disorder and misery which intoxi- 
cants provoke and stimulate." 

In the same connection I append two telegrams sent out 
during the recent Michigan campaign : 

Providenee, R. I., March 23. — Increase of arrests for 
drunkenness and revelry in Providence last six months license, 
over 18 per cent. Decrease in first six months prohibition, 
over 42 per cent. Common drunkeness in same time decreased 
in Newport, 100 per cent; Pawtucket, 50 per cent; last two 
months, 75 per cent. Official figures. 

H. W. CONANT. 



VERMONT. 32I 



Providence, R. I., March 24. — The statistics from the city 
of Providence, the largest city in the State, show an increase 
of drunkenness during the last six months of the license law 
of 183 per cent. While during the first six months of prohi- 
bition, as compared with the corresponding period under 
license, drunkenness decreased more than 42 per cent. The 
commitments to the State workhouse, whose inmates are 
largely victims to the intemperate use of intoxicating liquors, 
for the first six months of prohibition, as compared with the 
corresponding period under license, show a falling off of more 
than one-half, and resulting in the large saving to the State, 
of more than $1,800,000 per annum in the item of board 
alone. The "growler," or tin kettle trade has almost entirely 
disappeared from the streets, and children are not now seen 
frequenting liquor saloons for supplies of liquor, as before 
prohibition went into effect. Many families that never saw a 
penny of the weekly earnings of its head, now receive the 
full benefit of its labor. The legislature now in session has 
indefinitely postponed, by an almost unanimous vote, a prop- 
osition to submit the repeal of the prohibition amendment to 
the people, and will at this session make the prohibition law- 
more effective. 

C. R. Brayton, 

Chief of State Police. 



VEEMONT. 



The prohibitory law passed by a whig legislature in 1852 is 
still the law of the State. Towns appoint agents to sell liquors 
for medicinal and mechanical purposes. A number of laws 
to aid in enforcement have been passed, and prohibition is the 
settled policy of the State. An effort was made to submit a 
constitutional amendment in 1884, but owing to defects upon 
the cider question it was not favored by the Prohibitionists 
and failed to pass. The present law is fairly executed and 
.liquor is only sold clandestinely. 



322 APPENDIX. 



NEW HAMPSHIRE. 



New Hampsire has a prohibitory law, under which the traf- 
fic in alcoholic liquors is illegal, excepting by duly appointed 
but not licensed agents. Neither the State nor any of its mu- 
nicipalities derive revenue from the sale of liquors. Efforts 
for a State constabulary force for the better enforcement of 
the prohibitory law have been unsuccessful. 



NEW JEKSEY. 



This State has a license local option law. The license fee 
is from $10 to $100 per annum. The local option feature is 
by petition and special enactment. The laws reported not a. 
success where no license is voted, owing to difficulty in its. 
enforcement. 



PENNSYLVANIA. 



Mr. Peter Findley, of Bradford, writes to the Voice as 
follows : 

" The General Liquor Law of 1875 under which the traffic 
is now carried on in Pennsylvania, seems to have been in- 
tended chiefly to govern the courts in their treatment of vio- 
lators of the law ; but, as a rule, the courts seem to be afraid 
to administer liquor laws as they do others, although there are- 
a few noble exceptions. It is difficult to say in a word how 
the law, such as it is, is enforced. Here in McKean county 
no violations are furnished by the sworn officers, except when 
driven to it by the Law and Order Society and similar agen- 
cies. During the last four years, the good citizens have spent 
much time and money in trying to have the law enforced, but 
have received for their trouble only odium and abuse. These 



NEW YORK. 323 



things are not much minded by most of us, and we have set 
our faces against the great curse of our race, its friends and 
abettors. The simple truth about the liquor traffic is that it 
is a lawless traffic, and it cannot be regulated like a legitimate 
business." 

The law is a license law. From Hon. James Black we learn 
that 272 laws have been passed at different times. The license 
fee is very light, only $58 per annum in Philadelphia, and in 
many places much less, and not always collected. Several 
counties and towns have prohibition by special enactment. 



NEW YOEK. 



LICENSE SYSTEM. 



In 185 1 the Prohibition law was passed by the Legislature 
of Maine, and Prohibition at once became a question in the 
politics of the state of New York. It was at first confined to 
the legislative districts, but here it gained such a hold that, 
largely through the influence of that issue, the Legislature of 
this State, which in 1853 was constituted as follows : Senate : 
Whigs, 16 ; Democrats, 16 ; Assembly : Whigs, 42 ; Demo- 
crats 86, was in the following year composed as follows, Se- 
nate : Whigs, 23 ; Democrats, 9 ; Assembly : Whigs, 78 ; 
Democrats 50. It was this Legislature which passed the Pro- 
hibitory Bill which Gov. Seymour vetoed. 

The Senate, led by Myron H. Clark, attempted to pass the 
bill over the Governor's veto, but failed to secure the requi- 
site two-thirds vote, though the bill receiving 14 votes, while 
only 13 were cast against it. In the Assembly it met a simi- 
lar fate, and the question was thus returned to the people. 

The New York Herald, in an aditorial on the veto, on 
Saturday, April 1st, 1853, said : 

"The people of the State will turn aside from all the other 
political questions of the day. The various national ques- 
tions now agitating Congress, such as the Kansas-Nebraska 
Bill, may float about during the approaching agitation ; but 
the principal issue, and the great contest will spring out of 



324 APPENDIX. 



the bill just vetoed by Governor Seymour ; and there can be 
no doubt that the organization of the old parties, and the va- 
rious factions of them, will be smashed, and there will be, to 
a greater or less extent, a new division of parties on this 
issue. 

"Hitherto, the history of the contest upon the temperance 
question has been a story of dodging on one side and skulk- 
ing on the other, by the politicians of the old parties. They 
have temporized and traded between the radical men on both 
sides, and whether the temperance men trusted to the Whigs 
or Democrats the word of promise was kept to the ear but 
broken to the hope. 

"A common dodge, and it has been tried in other States as 
well as New York, has been to make 'a good strong law,' and 
thus intrust its execution to officials who depend upon rum 
for their posts." 

Mr. Seymour was renominated by the Democrats on his an- 
ti-Prohibitory sentiments, and the veto was circulated as a 
campaign document, it being reprinted in full in the New 
York Herald of October 21. In that veto, Mr. Seymour not 
only gave his constitutional objections to the bill, but he ad- 
ded his opinion against Prohibition itself. 

Mr. Bronson was the candidate of the hard-shell Democrats, 
and in a letter during the campaign declared his opposition to 
Prohibition, and favored the license system. 

Mr. Ullman was nominated by the Know-Nothings, whose 
platform was silent on the question, but he was opposed to 
Prohibitory legislation. 

Myron H. Clark was nominated by the Whigs, and subse- 
quently at Auburn, on September 26, by a State Temperance 
Convention, and by the Free Democrats, and still later, by the 
first Republican Convention held in the State, at Angelica, on 
October 14. The Free Democrats in their platform declared 
in favor of Prohibitory legislation. The State Temperance 
Convention passed strong resolutions on this question, from 
which the following extracts are made: 

"We advocate, and will labor for the enactment of a law 
prohibiting the traffic in intoxicating beverages. . . .We regard 
the enactment of such a law as the greatest and most vital 
issue in State politics, and we cannot subordinate this ques- 
tion to any other, nor defer its settlement to any more conve- 



NEW YORK. 325 



nient season. . . .We ask a Legislature that will enact such a 
law, a Governor who will approve, and magistrates and other 
officers who will enforce it." 

Myron H. Clark was nominated for Governor by acclama- 
tion, and Henry J. Raymond, editor of the New York Times, 
was nominated for Lieutenant-Governor on that platform, and 
both having accepted the nomination, were subsequently no- 
minated by the Angelica Republican convention. 

The vote in the State was as follows : Clark, 156,804, Sey- 
mour, 156,495 ; Ullman, 122,282 ; Bronson, 35,850; Clark's 
plurality, 309. Thus, the State was carried for Prohibition 
when the Governor received only 17 more than one-third of 
the total votes cast. The same issues prevailed in the elec- 
tion of the Legislature, which was composed as follows : Sen- 
ate : Whigs, 22 ; Democrats, 10. Assembly : Whigs, 82 ; 
Democrats, 41 ; Main Law Independents, 3. 

The bill vetoed by Governor Seymor was repassed April 
9th, 1855, and was made to take effect July 4th of that year. 

The court held that the act violated the Constitution, 
which provides that no person shall be deprived of his pro- 
perty without due process of law. As the act applied to 
liquors owned or possessed at the time it took effect, it virtu- 
ally deprived the owners of their property. The section 
which provided for the trial of accused persons before a 
Court of Special Sessions was also held invalid, as it deprived 
them of the right of the trial by jury. 

Under this decision, all that was requisite to bring the law 
under the Constitution was to grant trial by jury, and make it 
apply only to liquors made or purchased after it took effect \ 
but, instead of doing this, the Legislature elected in the fol- 
lowing November passed a license law. 

That Legislature was constituted as follows ; Senate : Re- 
publicans, 16 ; Americans, 11; Democrats, 4 ; Temperance, 
1. Assembly : Republicans, 81 ; Americans, 8 ; Democrats, 
31 ; Americans and Democrats, 8. Thus, we find that, 
whereas the State two years before had been carried for pro- 
hibition, the Republican party having elected its candidate 
for Governor, John A. King, by a plurality of 65,424, and 
having a majority in the Senate, with the one Temperance 
Senator, of two votes, and in the Assembly a majority of 37 
votes, we find that, instead of maintaining what had been 



326 APPENDIX. 



gained by making prohibition a leading question, that Re- 
publican Legislature, the first in this State, restored the 
licence policy to the State, and thus adopted license as the 
Republican plan of dealing with the liquor .traffic. From 
1854 until the organization of the prohibition party in 1869, 
no reference was made in any State platform in this State to 
the question of prohibition. Since that time, that party, in 
its annual conventions, has virtually adopted the platform on 
which Mr. Clark was elected, "a legislature to enact, a gover- 
nor to sign, and officers to enforce prohibitory legislation." 
Three years later, in 1872, the sixteenth resolution of the Re- 
publican national platform was declared by its author to have 
been adopted with the understanding that its object was to 
condemn prohibitory and Sunday legislation. This resolution 
was endorsed by the Republican convention of this State. In 
1876, four years after the Republicans in their national plat- 
form had committed their party to oppose prohibition, the 
Democratic National Convention adopted a resolution op- 
posing all sumptuary laws, and that position has been re- 
affirmed in all subsequent National Conventions. The party, 
in its several State Conventions in this State has endorsed this 
action. 

In no State convention of any party, in this State, except 
the Prohibition, has there been, since 1854, any resolution 
adopted condemning the license policy. 

In the Richfield Springs Republican State Convention of 
1883, the following resolution was adopted : 

•'We believe in the wisdom of the people in deciding all 
•questions pertaining to the public welfare, and would accede 
to the desire of a large body of our citizens to submit to the 
voters of the State, Constitutional Amendment in regard to 
the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors." 

This resolution in no way defined the policy of the party on 
the question, further than to declare a willingness to allow the 
people an opportunity to decide by a vote on "a Constitution- 
al Amendment in regard to the manufacture and sale of intox- 
icating drinks," what the subsequent legislative policy of the 
State should be, no matter what party should be intrusted with 
this legislation. 

From a letter dated Little Valley, N. Y., October 2, 1884, 



NEW YORK. 327 



and signed Charles Z. Lincoln, the following extracts are 
imade: 

"I had the honor to represent the Second District of Cat- 
taraugus county in the Republican State Convention of 1883, 
held at Richfield Springs. One object I had in attending that 
Convention was to see what could be done toward committing 
the party, in some degree at least, to the cause of Prohibition; 
not that I expected the party could be unqualifiedly commit- 
ted to prohibition as a principle of immediate party action, as 
that was too much to hope at the outset. * * * * At the 
election the preceding year the Prohibitionists polled about 
26,000 votes. This showed such a growth of the prohibition 
sentiment throughout the State as to demand some attention. 
* * * * After conversing with delegates from different 
parts of the State, lepresenting various shades of opinion on 
this question, I prepared and introduced a resolution favoring 
the submission to the people of a Prohibitory Constitutional 
Amendment. The substance of it was embodied in a plank 
of the platform, and the party became thereby pledged to give 
the people an opportunity, at the polls, to express their opin- 
ion on the subject of Constitutional Prohibition. 

Under this pledge the Republicans elected 70 members of 
the Assembly, and the Democrats 53. Mr. Olin, of Broome, 
was elected by the joint votes of the Republicans and Prohi- 
bitionists, and became the champion of the Constitutional 
Amendment, which was defeated by the following vote: 61 
ayes, 63 nays, 9 Democrats voting for the Amendment and 17 
Republicans against it; among the latter being Mr. Roose- 
velt,, the recognized leader of the Republican majority. Thus, 
with 9 Democrats voting against this party platform for sub- 
mission, the Republicans, with 17 majority in the Assembly, 
failed to redeem their party pledge to allow the people to 
decide what the future policy of the State should be on this 
question. Thus closes the last chapter of the history of pro- 
hibition in this State, which shows the Democratic party un- 
alterably opposed to prohibition, the Republican party respon- 
sible for the present license policy of the State, and guilty of 
breaking a party pledge in order to deny the people the priv- 
ilege of changing that policy and restoring prohibition, which 
was made the State policy by being made a party issue in 
1854, so that the prohibition party was left the only party in 



328 APPENDIX. 



the State which favors prohibition either as a party or State 
policy. 

In a letter dated December 27th, 1884, written by ex-Gov- 
ernor Myron H. Clark, to the writer of this article, he says: 

"Prohibition was one of the leading questions which led ta 
my election as Governor." 

That election was, as already stated, secured by 156,804 
votes in a total of 469,432 votes, which would require about 
400,000 votes in this State at the present time to have prohi- 
bition as strong, relatively, as it was when Mr. Clark was elec- 
ted Governor on that distinctive issue, and we leave it for the 
people to decide how soon, under the policy of non-partisan 
action, which has restored license and has maintained it, pro- 
hibition can be secured in this State ? 



MARYLAND. 



LICENSE GRANTED WITHOUT REGARD TO QUALIFICATIONS OR 
CHARACTER ON PAYMENT OF TAX REQUIRED BY LAW. 



HON. WM. DANIEL. 

The act of 1780, chapter 24, empowered the County Courts 
in session, to grant licenses to keep ordinaries to such persons 
as they shall think fit, being persons of good repute, to keep 
ordinaries in such, and as many places, within their respect- 
ive counties, for the ease and convenience of the inhabitants- 
travelers and strangers, as to them may seem proper. 

2. Power was given the courts to suspend them if disor- 
derly. 

3. They were required with two sufficient sureties, "to keep 
good rules and order, and not suffer loose, idle or dissolute 
persons, to tipple, game, or commit any disorder, or other ir- 
regularity in said ordinary." 

They were prohibited from selling to apprentices or slaves. 

And, by the nth section, al! persons w T ere prohibited from 
selling, except merchants, but what they sold could not be 
drank in the stores. 



MARYLAND. 329 



Nor could the keeper of the ordinary, at a horse race, sell 
after sunset. 

Now it is manifest from the legislation, that the license sys- 
tem was established solely for the purpose of regulating the 
sale of liquors, and for confining the right to sell to such num- 
ber of persons, who kept inns, as would, in the judgment of 
the Court, be sufficient for the accommodation of the public. 

1. The Courts were to grant the licenses. 

2. The persons, to whom this privilege was granted, were 
to be persons of "good repute. 

3. They were required to enter into recognizance, "to keep 
good rules and order, and not suffer loose, idle or disorderly 
persons to tipple, game, or commit disorder." 

In the year 1825 the legislature removed the restriction im- 
posed by the original laws, which only granted licenses to 
persons of good repute, and in such numbers as were required 
for the public, and under the other restrictions named. 

By the act of 1826, the power of the judges to grant licenses 
was taken uway, and the county clerks were directed to grant 
licenses to ordinary keepers, upon their entering into recog- 
nizance before justice of the peace that they would comply 
with the provisions of the several laws of this State, relative 
to ordinary keepers. 

Now even this restriction as much diminished as it was, as 
compared with the old law, was still some restriction, as it re- 
quires them to keep orderly houses. 

It removes, however, all supervision as to the character of 
the men to whom license was given ; and as to the numbers 
to whom given. 

Then came the act of 1827, chapter 117, which required the 
clerks to grant licenses to sell liquors in such quantities, less 
than a pint to all keepers of ordinaries, grog-shop, victualing 
and oyster houses, who pay the licenses, the only exception 
being, that the grand jury should signify to the court, their 
opinion that a license ought not to be granted to any indivi- 
uals, named in the list of applicants therefor, required to be 
laid before them ; the clerk could not grant the same without 
the special direction of the court. 

Next came the act of 1858, chapter 414, which was intend- 
ed as a revenue measure alone, the only requirements for the 
granting of licenses being that in the case of ordinaries (such 



33° APPENDIX. 



as hotels, &c.) and liquor saloons, beer shops, &c, where 
spirituous or fermented liquors are sold in quantities less than 
a pint, the applicant for license should be recommended by 
"two respectable freeholders of his immediate vicinity y Truly 
by no means a difficult condition to comply with. And even 
this last, nugatory restriction, if restriction indeed it could be 
called, so far as it relates to grog-shops, oyster houses, &c, 
was swept away by the act of 1862, chapter 119. 

Thus was fully completed by these last two acts, and 
especially by the act of 1858, the entire change in the prior pol- 
icy of the State, and which was inaugurated by the before 
mentioned act of 1827. 

And it is these last two acts that are now the law of the 
State as codified in our present code. Licenses by our pres- 
ent laws are classed under three heads : 1st, those called "re- 
tailers' licenses," and where the sales are in quantities greater 
than a pint, the amount to be paid for, the same being ac- 
cording to the quantity of the stock kept on hand at the prin- 
cipal season of sale ; 2nd, license to ordinaries, (hotels, &c), 
the amount being regulated by the rental; and thirdly, those to 
beer shops, liquor saloons, victualing houses, &c, the amount 
being $50 in every case, and in both of the latter cases the 
sales being allowed in quantities less than a pint. 

The old laws looked alone to the good of the community, 
and were restraining laws ; designed to limit the right to sell 
liquors to a few selected men of good character, who kept 
taverns, and imposing upon them several wholesome and sal- 
utary restrictions to that end. 

These more recent laws looked only to the revenue to the 
treasury. 

1. License to sell liquors must be granted to any one who 
applies, regardless of character. 

2. No discretion is given to the officers issuing them. 

3. No restriction as to tippling ; he may sell to any man, 
no matter how drunk he may be. 

4. Though in violation of law, they do sell to minors 
every day. 

5. Many of them permit gambling in their houses, in vio- 
lation of law. 



MARYLAND. 33 I 



The only general laws, that are at all exceptional to these 
very loose license laws, (believed to be as bad or worse than 
those of any other State), is the law against selling liquor to 
minors, (and which is rarely enforced) ; that against selling 
on election days, and that against selling on the Sabbath day, 
the last named of which, the liquor fraternity have made stre- 
nuous efforts, within the last eight or ten years past, to get 
repealed. 

In addition to this general legislation, local option laws 
have been passed authorizing many counties and localities to 
decide by ballot whether liquors should be sold. These laws 
are so similar in their nature that it is unnecessary to specify 
them in detail. They define the method and time of voting, 
make it illegal to sell in opposition to the vote, prescribe 
penalties, usually a fine not less than $50 nor more than $300, 
or imprisonment for thirty days. They also forbid sale by 
druggists except upon physician's prescription, and prescribe 
penalty for any person actually sick and in need of liquor as 
a medicine ; also penalty for any person who shall procure 
such prescription by deceit. The penalty in the last two ca- 
ses is fine of from $50 to $200, for the first offense and not 
less than $200 nor more than $500 for each subsequent 
offense. One half the fine goes to the informer and one half 
to the county school fund. 

The net result of the agitation for Prohibition in this State, 
by the method of local option, more especially, has been the 
adoption of prohibition in the whole ofAnne Arundel, Calvert, 
Caroline, Cecil, Hartford, Howard, Kent and Montgomery 
counties; and in twelve of the fourteen election districts inDor- 
chester county ; in nine out of about twenty districts in Fre- 
derick county ; in five out of eleven districts in Garrett coun- 
ty; in six out of the seven districts inQueen Anne's county; in 
eight out of the nine districts in Sommerset county ; in four out 
of the five districts in Talbot county; in about seven localities 
in Baltimore county, and one in Allegany county. 

The political complexion of the above counties is as fol- 
lows: Anne Arundel, Cecil, Dorchester, Garrett, Harford, 
Howard, Kent, Montgomery, Queen Anne and Talbot are 
Democratic, a number of them being the very strongholds of 



33 2 



APPENDIX. 



Democracy in this State. Frederick is Republican; while 
Caroline and Sommerset are doubtful. 

In the counties where Prohibition has been wholly defeated, 
as hereinbefore stated, Allegany, Charles and St. Marys are 
Republican; Carroll, Wicomico and Worcester, are Demo- 
cratic, and Prince Georges is doubtful. 

All the legislatures of Maryland, from 1868 to the present 
have been Democratic in both Houses, and for nearly the 
whole time about three-fourths Democratic on joint ballot. 

From 1872 to 1874 Wm. Pinckney Whyte, (who was elected 
to the U. S. Senate in 1874) was governor, from 1874 to 1875, 
Jas. Black Groome, who filled the unexpired term of Whyte, 
was Governor. From 1875-79, Jno. Lee Carroll, from 1879- 
83, Wm. T. Hamilton, and in 1883, Robt. M. McLane, who is 
still Governor. All the above named are democrats, as was 
also Oden Bowie, who was Governor from 1867-71. 

The prohibitory laws in these counties, have been generally 
well enforced, the counties of Prince Georges and and Cal- 
vert being the exceptions. The lack of enforcement in the 
former, was one of the principal reasons of its recent repeal. 



WISCONSIN. 



TOWN BOARDS, VILLAGE BOARDS AND COMMON COUNCILS HAVE 
AUTHORITY TO GRANT LICENSES AT THEIR DISCRETION. 



This article is not intended to be exhaustive. Nothing 
more will be attempted than to give some account of the 
more important and interesting action in this direction. 

The Territory of Wisconsin was organized in 1836. In the 
legislation of the year 1836 authority was given to license 
"groceries, victualing houses and ordinaries with permission 
to sell spirituous liquors and wine." The license fee was #108. 
The penalty for violating the law was a fine not less than #10 
and not to exceed $50. 

In 1839 a volume of territorial laws was published in which 
the laws on this subject were given as they existed at that 
date. 



Wisconsin. 333 



Licenses were authorized to be granted "to keepers of inns 
and taverns to sell strong and spirituous liquors and wine to 
be drunk in or out of their houses respectively. " The license 
fee had been greatly reduced since 1836. It was now not less 
than $5, and not over $25, Grocery licenses for liquors to be 
drunk on the premises, $100. 

No licenses to be granted to inn holders or tavern keepers 
unless the applicant was of good moral character, that he 
had sufficient ability to keep a tavern, and had the neces- 
sary accommodations to entertain travelers, and that a tavern 
is necessary for the accommodation of travelers where the 
applicant proposed to keep the same, all of which had to be 
especially stated in the licenses. 

A bond was required of every tavern keeper, inn holder or 
grocer, in such sum as the commissioner may require, condi- 
tioned that the applicant will not suffer his house or grocery 
to become disorderly or allow gaming with cards, dice or 
other implements used in gaming in his tavern or grocery or 
any out house or yard appertaining thereto. The accomoda- 
tions that tavern keepers were to have, are set forth in the 
law: Two beds with sufficient covering, sufficient stabling, 
hay, feed, grain etc., and pasturage in summer. 

Penalty for selling without license, $25 fine. They were not 
allowed to sell to minors under 18 years of age without con- 
sent of parents or guardians. 

Penalty $20 fine, with liability to have license revoked, and 
if revoked it could not be renewed for three years. 

Licenses for selling in larger quantities than one quart were 
from $20 to $75. Penalty for selling without licenses, from 
$10 to $75. 

In 1840 a law was passed forbidding the sale of liquors to 
Indians— penalty $50. If the sale was made by a licensed per- 
son his license was forfeited and could not be renewed for 
the space of one year. 

No particular further changes seem to have been made in 
the license laws while Wisconsin remained a territory. 

The State was admitted into the Union in 1848. At the 
session of the Legislature that met in January, 1849, m ° st ex- 
traordinary action was had. 

A law was passed at this session known at that time as the 
Wisconsin bond law. In its main features it was almost ex- 



334 APPENDIX. 



actly like what have since been denominated civil damage laws. 
The question suggests itself whether this Wisconsin "bond 
law" was not really the first civil damage law passed in the 
United States. 

The first section of this law provided that "in addition to 
all other requirements a penal bond of $1,000 with three or 
more sufficient sureties" should be given "conditioned to pay 
all damages to support all paupers, widows and orphans, pay 
the expenses of all civil and criminal prosecutions made, 
growing out of or justly attributable to such traffic, that com- 
munity or individuals may sustain by reason of such traffic." 

Married women were authorized to institute and maintain 
in their own names suits on any such bond for all damages 
sustained by themselves or their children. 

"No suit for liquor bills shall be entertained by any court 
in the State." 

"When in any suit or promissory note, it was made to appear 
that it was given in whole or in part for liquor bills the court 
must dismiss suit at once at cost of plaintiff." 

It was only necessary to prove on trial, to sustain the ac- 
tion, that the principal in the bond sold or gave liquor to the 
person intoxicated or in liquor on that day previous to the 
commission of the offense. 

When a person became a pauper by reason of intemper- 
ance, a suit could be instituted by the proper authorities on 
the bond of the person who had been in the habit of selling 
or giving liquor to the person who had become a public 
charge. 

■ A person against whom judgment was obtained could sue 
all others engaged in the traffic in the place, who had been in 
the habit of selling to the person, to compel contribution to- 
wards paying the judgment. 

Penalty for selling without first giving the required bond was 
not less than $50 nor more than $500, and imprisonment not 
less than 10 days nor more than six months, and also liability 
to the public and to individuals the same as though the bond 
had been given. 

The passage of this law was hailed all over the land, by the 
friends of temperance as the most advanced step ever taken 
in legislation touching the liquor traffic. 

The legislature was largely democratic, with about a dozen 



Wisconsin. 335 



each of whigs and free soilers. Among these free soilers was 
Hon, J. F. Willard, the father of Miss Frances Willard, as a 
member from Rock county. 

But the passage of this law was by no means all that was 
done by this legislature touching the liquor traffic. 

A large number of petitions were presented asking for 
the repeal of all laws providing for the sale of intoxicating 
liquors. 

A bill was introduced to repeal all such laws. This bill and 
all petititions upon the matter were referred to a select com- 
mittee of which Samuel D. Hastings, a member of the essem- 
bly from Walworth county was the acting chairman. 

The committee consisted of two democrats, two free soilers 
and one whig. 

Mr. Hastings, a free soiler, presented the report on behalf 
of the committee, and as showing the views held at that time 
on the question of license the report is given in full. It was 
signed by all the members of the committee: 

"The committee to whom were referred No. 68 A." A bill 
repealing all laws providing for licensing the sale of spi- 
ritous liquors together with sundry petitions praying for ac- 
tion on the subject would respectfully report. 

That in entering upon the consideration of the various mat- 
ters referred to them, they have felt deeply sensible of their 
importance and of the propriety of giving them a candid ex- 
amination. 

The whole question of licensing the sale of spiritous liquors 
is one that has been the occasion of much discussion in the 
several states of the Union, and one upon which there is a 
wide diversity of opinon among the wise and good of the land. 

Your committee have felt diffident of their ability to throw 
much additional light on a subject that has been so ably and 
so fully discussed by those who have given it much thought 
and patient investigation ; still endeavoring to profit by the 
facts and arguments of others, and guided by the lamp of ex- 
perience, they would present to the assembly some of the con- 
siderations which have led them to the conclusions they have 
reached. 

The license laws of our State authorize the sale of spirit- 
uous liquors as a common beverage, with certain conditions 
therein specified. 



$$6 APPENDIX. 



Your committee would call attention to the following facts: 

First. It is established by uncontrovertible testimony 

that the intoxicating principle of these liquors is poison, and 

that their habitual use as a beverage is not conducive to the 

well being of mankind. 

Second. It is an equally well established fact that their 
general use operates injuriously upon the best interests of a 
community in various ways, among which may be men- 
tioned the following, viz : (a) It destroys the prosperity, the 
health, the happiness, and the lives of thousands of those 
who use them. It is estimated that not less than thirty 
thousand drunkards die annually in the United States, (ti) As 
an inevitable result it operates injuriously upon the families 
and connections of its more immediate victims. It destroys 
their prosperity and happiness, and in many cases reduces 
them to pauperism. (V) It has been proved by reference to 
official documents that the use of spirituous liquors as a bev- 
erage is the cause of at least three-fourths of the pauperism of 
the country, (d) It is estimated that at the present time 
there are not less than two hundred thousand individuals in 
the various alms-houses of the United States, who have been 
brought there entirely through the influence of the use of such 
liquors by the individuals themselves or by those upon whom 
they were dependent, (e) Their use is a fruitful source of 
crime. The larger amount of the more heinous crimes com- 
mitted in the country are committed under the exciting in- 
fluence of these drinks. There are at the present time, 
probably not less than fifty thousand criminals in confine- 
ments as a penalty for crimes committed under the influence 
of intoxication produced by the use of spirituous liquors. (/) 
It can be shown by reference to data that cannot be contro- 
verted that the cost to the United States in consequence of 
the use of these liquors, is not less than one hundred million 
dollars annually. 

This amount is made up in part by the following items, viz: 
i. The cost of the liquor consumed, paid by those who are 
in no sense benefitted by it. 2. The loss of time which its 
use occasions. 3. The diminished productions of land, la- 
bor and capital. 4. The loss of health and reason and all 
the expenditures occasioned thereby. 5. The cost of the 
support of paupers and of the prosecution, trial and support 



Wisconsin. 337 



of criminals occasioned by it. 6. The property lost in con- 
sequence of its use, by casualties on the land and on the wa- 
ters. 7. The shortening of human life and the consequent 
loss of human labor. 

We have laws upon our statute books which license men to 
traffic in an article, the use of which produces all the evil re- 
sults we have noticed. 

The business is thus made legal and respectable. The man 
who is engaged in it in one sense may be said to stand on a 
higher ground than the man who is engaged in any other 
business, for he acts under an express license granted by the 
■authority of the State. 

Your committee are unanimous in the opinion, that all laws 
on our statute book, which license the sale of spirituous 
liquors and thus give the high sanction of the State to this 
traffic ought to be immediately repealed for the following, 
among other reasons: 

First. Because all such laws are anti-democratic. They 
give special privileges to a few, that are not enjoyed by the 
many. One man is authorized to pursue a business, which 
perhaps, his next neighbor is not allowed to pursue. 

If the business is right and proper in itself, all should be 
allowed to pursue it without restraint. If it is wrong no one 
should be legally authorized. 

Second. Because it is going beyond the legitimate scope 
of legislative authority to pass such laws. It is authorizing a 
man, by law, to pursue a business that is injurious to the best 
interest of the community, 

The facts already presented prove conclusively, that the 
use of spiritous liquors, while they do no good to any human 
being are productive of evils of the greatest magnitude. 

While license laws are in force all these evil results follow 
under the sanction of law. 

The law should give its sanction only to that which is right 
in itself, and just and equal in its result. It should authorize 
and sanction the right and condemn the wrong. In all its 
requirements and sanctions it should be in strict accordance 
with natural justice, and should consult the best good of all 
its subjects. We are told by high authority that "all laws 
'derive their force from the law of justice, and those who do 
not are accounted no laws," — Fortescue, Jac, Laze Did. 



338 APPENDIX. 



"The law of nature is that which God, at man's creation, in- 
fused into him, for his preservation and direction, and this is an 
eternal law and may not be changed" — 2 Shap. Abr. 336 Jac. 
Law Diet. '-Jurisprudence is the science of what is just and 
right. ' ' — Justinian. 

These extracts could be multiplied to almost any extent 
but enough we think have been adduced for the purpose of 
the present argument. It is not competent for legislative 
authority to authorize wrong — to authorize a man to injure 
his neighbor or to injure the community in whose midst he 
may reside, or to authorize him to pursue a business which 
would produce these results. The traffic in spirituous liquors 
does produce these results. To sanction and protect it by- 
law is wrong. It is transcending the rightful authority of the 
law making power. It is a violation of those great principles 
which lie at the foundation of all just legislation, and its in- 
fluence upon the well-being of the community is injurious in 
the highest degree. So long as the traffic is shielded by the 
fostering and protecting arm of the law, so long will the busi- 
ness be regarded as an honest and respectable 
calling — and so long will the ten thousand times ten 
thousand evils which follow in its train continue to curse the 
land. 

Withdraw from the business the sanction of the State and 
fix upon it the frown of a correct and indignant public opin- 
ion and if it does not sink away into obscurity the people will 
then be prepared to call for such remedies as the nature of 
the case may demand. 

It may be objected to the view taken by your committee 
that the license laws are prohibitory in their character and 
design, the original design, without doubt, of the passage 
of license laws was to create a revenue to the government. 
They had their origin in England at a time when expedients, 
of all kinds were resorted to for this purpose. The first license 
law passed in this country, that your committee have any 
record of, was passed in Massachusetts, in 1646. This, doubt- 
less, had the double object in view of raising a revenue and 
regulating the business. License laws have been in existence 
from that period to the present, and almost if not quite every 
State in the Union has passed such laws, and still, in the face 
of them all, the use of intoxicating drinks has increased, and 



Wisconsin. 339 



the evils of intemperance have spread and enlarged until 
their magnitude and extent have become almost beyond en- 
durance. Whatever, then, may have been the design of the 
license laws, their operation has not been prohibitory. Under 
their influence intemperance has increased and our country 
has been cursed with a curse of the most awful character. 

A few moments examination, we doubt not, will satisfy any- 
one that these laws could not be prohibitory in their opera- 
tion, for any good practical purpose. The law merely pre- 
scribes who shall sell and how the seller shall procure his 
authority to carry on the traffic. It places no limit to the quan- 
tity to be sold. The supply is always equal to the demand. In 
a community where spirituous liquors are sold by anyone 
who has the means and desires to procure them can do so just 
as effectually as though they were sold in every house. Were 
it not for the sanction of the law, public sentiment might long 
since have rendered the business disreputable and driven 
from it all who regard their standing among their fellow men. 
While the law protects it, it will be impossible to fix upon it 
that odium which should justly attach to it. What is the 
law ? By what authority does the liquor seller pursue his 
business ? 

The law is the expression of the will of the whole people 
placed upon the statute book, by their chosen representatives. 
The man who pursues this business does it by the authority 
of the whole people. What right have they to complain of 
him for the course he is pursuing ? What right have they to 
charge upon him the entire responsibility of the evil results 
which flow from the sale of his poisonous liquors ? He is 
doing no more than the people in their collected wisdom 
have authorized him to do, and in doing which he is protected 
by the strong arm of the law. The responsibility rests upon 
the people who have made and who now sustain the law. 

The effect then of our license laws not prohibitory : They 
furnish a supply equal to the demand, and place it within the 
reach of all, and then stand as a guardian angel to shield the 
traffic from the effects of that virtuous indignation of an out- 
raged community which might otherwise compel the hydra- 
headed monster to hide itself in the caves and dens of the 
earth. These laws are anomalies in legislation. They are based 
upon wrong principles. To license wrong is not the way to 



340 APPENDIX. 



prohibit and restrain it. To license is to declare that if prac- 
ticed legally it is right, and hence it is almost impossible to 
produce upon the minds of a large portion of the community 
the conviction that it is wrong. 

In view of the foregoing considerations, your committee are 
unanimous in reporting back to the assembly "No. 68. " A bill 
repealing all laws providing for the licensing of the sale of 
spirituous liquors, without amendment, and recommending its 
passage." 

The bill passed the assembly by a vote of 41 in its favor to 
8 against — five to one. 

When sent to the senate it was referred to the "committee 
on expiration and re-enactment of laws," who reported it back 
with an amendment, with the recommendation that when 
amended it be passed. 

The amendment was the addition of the following proviso : 
"Provided that nothing herein contained, shall be so con- 
strued, as in any manner to interfere with any of the provisions 
of 'an act relating to the sale of spirituous liquors,' passed at 
the present session of the legislature. 

The act referred to was the "Bond law" already spoken of. 
The bill passed the senate by a vote of 8 to 5, but was re- 
considered before it went to the governor for his signature, 
and was then defeated by a vote of 9 to 7, and here the mat- 
ter rested. 

In 1850 an effort was made to repeal the bond law 
which only resulted in some amendments which added to its 
efficiency. 

The amendment passed the senate by a vote of 11 to 8, 
and the assembly by a vote of 36 to 24. 

In 185 1 the "Bond law" was repealed and a license law put 
in its place. 

Under the provisions of this law the supervisors of towns, 
aldermen of cities and trustees of villages, were authorized to 
grant license "to grocers, saloon keepers or places of any 
name whatever," to retail to as many as they see proper. Li- 
cense fee for retailers $100, for wholesalers $50. A bond of 
$500 was required, conditioned that the applicant would keep 
an orderly and well regulated house, permit no gambling, 
and obey all legal requirements of the authorities, granting 



WISCONSIN. 341 



the license. Penalty for violating the law, a fine of $100 and 
costs or 60 days imprisonment. 

It was made the duty of supervisors, aldermen, trustees of 
villages, justices of the peace, marshals, deputy marshals, and 
constables to make complaint when they knew or where cre- 
ditably informed that the law had been violated, and if they 
neglected to do so they were liable to a fine of $25. 

The officers granting licenses were authorized to forbid the 
sale of liquor to excessive drinkers, spendthrifts, or persons 
liable to become public charges. Licenses could be revoked 
if the law were not obeyed. 

The law repealing the "Bond law" and enacting the license 
law passed the assembly by a vote of 30 to 24 and the senate 
by a vote of 9 to 8. 

In 1852 no changes were made in the license law, other 
than to reduce the fee for retailing to not less than $10 nor 
more than $100; for wholesaling not less than $10 nor more 
than $40. Penalty not less than $10 nor more than $40. 

In 1853, a large number of petitions were presented to the 
legislature asking for a prohibitory law. A bill for a prohibi- 
tory law was introduced, and for a while seemed likely to pass, 
but finally the matter was compromised by submitting the 
question to a popular vote. A law was passed providing 
that "At the general election to be held on the Tuesday suc- 
ceeding the first Monday in November, A. D. 1853, at the 
usual place of holding elections in the state for the election 
of all officers required by law, then to be elected, it shall be 
lawful for the qualified electors of this state to vote for or 
against a prohibitory liquor law, such vote shall be by ballot 
* * * and shall contain the words 'prohibitory liquor 
law, No,' or 'prohibitory liquor law, Yes,' and the ballots so 
cast shall be canvassed and returned in the same manner as 
the votes cast for state officers are required to be canvassed 
and returned.' The secretary of state was required to publish 
the result and communicate the same to the next legislature. 

This law passed the assembly by a vote of 40 to 12, and 
the senate by a vote of 15 to 7 — a more than two-thirds vote 
in both houses. 

In 1854 the governor in his message to the legislature said: 
"At the June session of the last legislature an act submitting 



342 APPENDIX. 



to the electors of the State the question of a prohibitory li- 
quor law, was passed. 

"The Secretary of State in pursuance of a requirement of 
that law, reports the whole vote cast at the late election upon 
that question to be 51,632, and that 27,519 votes were for, and 
24,109 against the law. 

"The expression of public opinion comtemplated by the 
act referred to, submitting the question to the popular vote, is 
now before you, and it remains for you in your wisdom to 
determine what will best satisfy the sentiments of the whole 
people in relation to the subject, subserve there true interests 
and be best adapted to the actual condition of things in the 
State at large." 

This portion of the message was referred to a special com- 
mittee consisting of James H. Knowlton. John W. Davis, Har- 
low S. Orton and C. C. Remington. 

This committee reported a stringent prohibitory la\v and 
recommended its passage. 

The bill passed the assembly by a vote of 43 to 28. It 
went to the senate, where it was amended, providing that it 
should be submitted to a popular vote before going into effect, 
and as thus amended passed by a vote of 16 to 6. The assem- 
bley refused to accept this amendment, claiming that the 
people had just voted upon the question and given a decided 
expression of their views in favor of such a law. Committees 
of conference were appointed but neither house would yield, 
and thus the law failed. 

In 1855 a bill for a prohibitory law was again introduced 
and passed the assembly by a vote of 42 to 23, and the senate 
by a vote of 13 to 7, nearly a two-thirds vote. 

Thus it will be seen that the Wisconsin legislature has twice 
been at a point where it passed a prohibitory law by large 
majorities in both houses. 

Up to 1854 the State had always been democratic. In 1855 
the assembly was republican while the senate and the execu- 
tive still remained democratic. 

The prohibitory law passed this year was vetoed by Gov. 
Wm. A. Barstow. 

The vote in the assembly upon passing the bill over the ve- 
to was 39 to 30, thus failing to secure its passage. 

There does not appear to have been any special legislation 



Wisconsin. 343 



on the liquor question until 1859, when a law was passed for- 
bidding the sale of liquor on Sunday at the annual town meet- 
ings, and at the fall elections. 

In 1861 a law was passed forbidding the sale of liquors 
within two miles of a camp-meeting or religious assembly 
without the consent of those having charge of the meeting, 
unless by persons previously licensed. 

In 1862 slight changes were made in the price charged for 
licenses and in the penally for violation of the law, 

No further special legislature on the subject seems to have 
been held until 1866, when a law was passed forbidding the 
sale of liquor to minors, and forbidding their playing billiards 
in saloons. 

In 1867 a law was passed forbidding the sale of liquor with- 
in one mile of the State Hospital for the Insane. 

In 1872 the civil damage law generally known as the 
4 <Graham law" was passed. 

This law was substantially the "Bond law" of 1849 wi^ 1 
some of its best features omitted. 

In 1873 a strong effort was made to repeal this law, but it 
failed. The effort to repeal was repeated in 1874, and suc- 
ceeded, when a license law was again put on the statute books. 

The law of 1874 is essentially the law now in force, and has 
many excellent provisions for a license law. 

Town boards, village boards and common councils have au- 
thority to grant as many licenses to retail or wholesale liquors 
as "they may deem proper." 

It is at the discretion of these boards to grant or to refuse 
to grant licenses, and hence it will be seen that the law is 
really a "local option law," as the voters can prevent the li- 
censing of the traffic by electing a board that will refuse to 
grant licenses. 

Every applicant has to give a bond of $500, with satisfact- 
ory sureties, "conditioned that the applicant, during the con- 
tinuance of his license, will keep and maintain an orderly and 
well-regulated house, that he will permit no gambling with 
cards, dice, or any device or implement for that purpose, with- 
in his premises, or any outhouse, yard or shed appertaining 
thereto; that he will not sell or give away any intoxicating 
liquor to any minor, unless upon the written order of the pa- 
rent or guardian of such minor, or to persons intoxicated or 



344 APPENDIX. 



bordering upon intoxication, or to habitual drunkards, and 
that he will pay all damages that may be recovered by any 
person pursuant to section 1560, and that he will observe and 
obey all orders of such supervisors, trustees or aldermen, or 
any of them, made pursuant to law." 

The law makes it the duty of "every supervisor, trustee, 
alderman, justice of the peace, police officer, marshall, deputy 
marshall and constable, * * who shall know or be credibly 
informed that any offense has been committed against the 
provisions of this chapter to make complaint against the per- 
son so offending, * * to a proper justice of the peace, and 
for every neglect or refusal to do so, every such officer shall 
forfeit $25." 

The law provides that "When any person shall, by excessive 
drinking of intoxicating liquors, misspend, waste or lessen his 
estate so as to expose himself or family to want, or the town, 
city or village to which he belongs to liability for the support 
of himself or family, or so as thereby to injure his health, 
endanger the loss thereof, or to endanger the personal safety 
and comfort of his family, or any member thereof, the wife of 
such person, such supervisor, alderman, trustee, or any mem- 
ber thereof, shall, in writing signed by her, him or them, for- 
bid all persons licensed by this chapter, to sell or give away 
to him any ardent, spirituous, or intoxicating liquors or 
drinks, for the space of one year." 

This authoiity is extended so that these officers can forbid 
the sale in any other town, city, or village to which the spend- 
thrift may resort for the same. This prohibition to sell can 
be renewed from year to year. 

The law provides (Section 1560.) that any person or persons 
who shall be injured in person or property or means of sup- 
port by or in consequence of the intoxication of any minor 
or habitual drunkard, shall have the right of action severally 
or jointly, in his, her or their names, against any person or 
persons who have been notified or requested in writing by the 
authorities designated in Section 1554, or by the husband, 
wife, parents, relatives, guardians or persons having the care 
or custody of such minor or habitual drunkard, not to part 
with liquor or other intoxicating drinks to them, and who not- 
withstanding such notice and request, shall knowingly sell or 
give away intoxicating drinks, thereby causing the intoxica- 



Wisconsin. 345 



tion of such minor or drunkard, and shall be liable for all 
damage resulting therefrom. 

Married women have the same right to sue as others. 

"All places of whatever description in which intoxicating 
liquors are sold in violation of law shall be held and are de- 
clared public nuisances, and shall, upon conviction of the 
keeper thereof, be shut up and abated." 

The sale of liquor on Sunday, on the day of the annual 
town meeting and the day of the fall election is forbidden. 

"The giving away of intoxicating liquors, or other shift or 
device to evade the provision of this chapter shall be deemed 
and held to be an unlawful selling within its provisions. 

The sale of liquor to Indians is forbidden. 

In 1882, a law was passed providing that in case aperson to 
whom liquor had been forbidden to be sold was found intoxi- 
cated, he could be arrested and made to tell where he had pro- 
cured his liquor, and in the event he refused to do so he was 
liable to imprisonment. It was also provided that any per- 
son who procured, in any way, liquor, for a person to whom 
it had been forbidden to be sold, should be liable to punish- 
ment. 

In 1878 petitions were first presented to the Legislature ask- 
ing for the submission to the people of an amendment to the 
constitution of the State, prohibiting the manufacture and 
sale of intoxicating beverages. 

The matter was before the Senate only. 

A joint resolution was introduced, providing for such sub- 
mission. Ths result of the first vote upon the question was 
thirteen in its favor, seven against, and thirteen not voting. 

The final vote was thirteen in favor, fourteen against, and 
six not voting. About 15,000 names were signed to the peti- 
tion presented this year. 

In 1879 petitions were again presented asking for the sub- 
mission of a prohibitory amendment. 

This year there were about 40,000 names to the petitions ; 
and memorials were presented representing about 100,000 of 
the citizens of the State. The matter was before both houses. 

In the Senate the measure was defeated, the vote being 
eleven in favor, twenty against and two not voting. 

In the Assembly the matter was indefinitely postponed. 
The vote not given. 



346 APPENDIX. 



In 1880, the matter was again before both houses of the 
Legislature. 

In the Assembly the life was taken out of the joint resolu- 
tion of submission by putting off the operations of the amend- 
ment until 1890, and by excepting from its operation beer, 
and possibly wine. 

It barely passed the Assembly, in this diluted form, and 
was sent to the Senate where it was defeated by a vote of 
twelve in its favor, fourteen against, and seven not voting. 

The result of the several votes in the assembly were as fol- 
lows. On a motion to indefinately postpone, the motion was 
lost— 38 in favor, 47 against and 15 not voting. 

It was ordered to a third reading by the following vote : 50 
for, 37 against, 13 not voting. 

On the question of its final passage, it was defeated by the 
following vote : 44 in favor, 33 against, and 23 not voting. 
It requires a majority of all the members elect — 51— to pass a 
resolution submitting an amendment to the constitution. 

The last named vote was reconsidered and the resolution 
adopted by the following vote ; 53 for, 44 against and 3 not 
voting. 

In 1881, the matter was again before the assembly and was 
lost by the following vote : 40 in favor, 48 against and 12 not 
voting. 

This vote was reconsidered, and the final vote was 39 in 
favor, 51 against, and 10 not voting. 

The question was not before the senate this year. 

In 1882 it was again before the assembly. 

On the question of ordering to a third reading, the vote was 
43 for, 49 against and 8 not voting. 

It was reconsidered the next day, and then immediately 
laid on the table without a count. 

It will be noticed that the show for carrying the resolution 
for submission through the senate was better the first time it 
was presented in 1878 then it has ever been since. 

In the assembly the first recorded vote in favor of the 
measure was 50 in its favor in 1880, while the last vote in its 
favor, in 1882, was but 43. 

The republican party was largely in the majority in the 
Legislature when these votes were taken. 

What hope of the measure being carried by this party in 



VIRGINIA. 347 



view of these facts ? The policy of the friends of the measure 
since has been to labor to make prohibition sentiment among 
the people, and to organize the sentiment when made, rather 
than to spend time in asking the Legislature to grant what it 
is well known they would refuse. 

The law was slightly amended by the last Legislature (1887.) 



VIRGINIA. 



LICENSE SYSTEM. 



The laws of Virginia up to i860 were in the nature of mild 
license laws. In the code of i860, page 224, we find a some- 
what more rigid law, making it illegal to either sell liquor or 
rectify or distil ardent spirits without license. Those who 
manufactured cider, or distilled from fruit or grain raised by 
themselves, were exempt from the law, provided their distil- 
leries did not run more than four months in the year. The 
penalty for distilling, brewing or rectifying without license 
was from $30 to $200, and for selling without license, $60. 
These sections did not apply to those who sold from products 
of their own raising, at the place where manufactured, if not 
sold to be drunk on the premises. Any person selling to a 
•slave without written consent, forfeited to the master of such 
slave four times the value of the liquor sold, and was liable to 
a fine of $20. In addition, the violator of the last two provis- 
ions was liable to have his license revoked. A person who 
gave a w T ritten permit to a slave to purchase liquor for him, 
with intent to sell the same, forfeited $20, and must give se- 
curity for good behavior for one year. 

In 1873 the sale from sunset the day before until sunrise the 
day after any election was made illegal, the violator being 
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to fine of not more 
than $100 and imprisonment not to exceed one year. 

At the session of 1883-4, the legislature passed in act pro- 
viding for three kinds of licenses, viz : wholesale dealers. 



348 APPENDIX. 



retail merchants and bar-room keepers. The first could not 
sell in quantities less than five gallons; the second could sell 
in quantities less than five gallons, not to be drunk on the 
premises; the third in quantities less than five gallons, to be 
drunk on the premises only. Any person desiring to sell in 
any two or more of these methods must take out license for 
both. Wholesalers of malt liquors might sell in bottles or 
jugs in quantities not less than one dozen. The law applied 
to clubs and corporations as well as to individuals. Violators 
were subject to fine, not less than $100 nor more than $500, 
and to imprisonment not exceeding twelve months in the dis- 
cretion of the court. Persons who felt aggrieved by the is- 
suance of license could contest the application for the same ? 
and after hearing the evidence on both sides, the court could 
refuse the license, or, if he thought person and place proper 
and suitable, might grant the same. In the latter case the 
applicant must give bond in not less than $250 nor more than 
$500 for faithful compliance with the law. Appeal could be 
taken to the circuit court by either party. The decision of 
the circuit court, or of a circuit judge in vacation was final 
and no farther appeal or writ of error allowed. 

Druggists must take out license as retail dealers, and were 
subject to the same penalties. 

In addition to these general laws, special laws for localities^ 
and charters for towns and cities, authorize the voters to de- 
cide by ballot whether licenses shall be granted, and it is pro- 
vided that the State law shall in no way interfere with these 
local option laws. Under these laws a number of localities 
prohibit the sale. There is also a law prohibiting the sale on 
Sunday, or to minors. 

The law of i860 was passed by a democratic legislature 
and approved by Governor Letcher, democrat. That of 1873, 
was also passed by the democrats, who assumed at that time 
the name ''true republicans," and was approved by Governor 
Gilbert C. Walker. The act of 1883 — 4 was passed by a leg- 
islature largely democratic, and was approved by Governor 
Cameron, republican, elected upon a re-adjuster platform. 



WEST VIRGINIA. 349 



WEST VIKGINIA. 



LICENSE SYSTEM AND RESTRICTIONS WHICH ARE NOT ENFORCED. 



Frank Burt. 

The laws regulating the sale of spirituous and malt liquors 
when this State was formed are found in the Code of Vir- 
ginia, i860. 

No free negro could be granted license to sell ardent 
spirits. A license to a white man to keep tavern, gave also 
the right to retail liquors. A merchant could get license to 
retail liquors by paying an additional fee (he could not be a 
merchant without procuring a license), provided the county 
court would certify that he was a person of good character. 
Distiller's license also gave privilege to retail liquors on the 
premises ; but the party buying must not drink it there. The 
only restriction imposed on one having license to sell liquors, 
was that he should not sell to slaves. 

In the year 1863, the Legislature of this State enacted, that 
if boards of supervisors of any county could give to person 
applying for license to sell liquors, a certificate of good moral 
character and demeanor, and not of intemperate habits, they 
might issue license after taking bond in the penalty of not less 
than $500 nor more than $1000; conditioned, that person to 
be licensed would not permit any one to drink to intoxication 
on the premises, and not to sell to any person intoxicated or 
one known to have the habit of intoxication, nor to any per- 
son under 21 years of age, or on Sunday. 

In 1865 : enacted that places where liquor is sold must 
close on the day of an election and the night succeeding, if 
within two miles. 

In 1866 : enacted that #// places where liquor is sold must 
be closed on the day preceeding, as well as on the day of an 
election, and made it unlawful to sell it or to permit it to be 
drank at such places on election days. Also unlawful for a 
person to be drunk at a place of holding an election. 

In 1873 a l aw was enacted very similar to the Adair civil 
damage law of Ohio, or the Austin law of Illinois, both of 
which are given elsewhere, but with the additional provisions 



350 APPENDIX. 



that any person elected to any office shall forfeit same if it be 
proven that on the day of his election he offered to sell or 
give, or did so sell or give or distribute any intoxicating 
drink to any voter ; and if any person did so offer or sell or 
distribute to any voter on election day, he forfeits $20 to 
$100. Engineers and railroad conductors intoxicated on 
duty, guilty of misdemeanor and liable to fine not exceeding 

$5°°- 

In 1877 a still more stringent law was enacted, which is. 
still in force. Bond $3500, conditioned that any restriction 
violated by either selling or giving, shall render liable to 
prosecution. Unlawful to permit any person to drink to in- 
toxication on the premises, to sell or give to any person in- 
toxicated, or to one in the habit of becoming so, or one of 
unsound mind, or under 21 years of age, or to sell or give to* 
any one on Sunday. Any husband, wife, child, parent, or 
guardian may serve notice (written) on any person engaged 
in the sale of intoxicating liquors, not to sell to the husband, 
wife, child, parent or ward, and thereafter the seller is liable 
for any damage to person, property or in means of support, 
and for exemplary damages, by reason of the intoxication of 
the person to whom sale was made in violation of such notice. 
The owner of place where liquor law is violated maybe in- 
dicted for maintaining a public nuisance, and the place 
closed up. An officer with a warrant may break open any 
place where liquors are sold clandestinely, when necessary 
for the arrest or indentification of the person selling. County 
court cannot grant license in corporated towns without con- 
sent of Town Council. 

For the past ten years drug stores have multiplied in some 
parts of the State, and in many instances become vile dogger- 
ies. The law governing them in the sale of liquor has there- 
fore been getting more strict. The following, passed in 1883, 
now governs: Druggists can only sell alcoholic liquors for 
medicinal, mechanical or scientific purposes, and no sale to 
be made except upon written prescription of a practicing phy- 
sician in good standing in his profession, and not of intem- 
perate habits, specifying name of person and quantity to be 
furnished him, but no druggist who is himself a practicing 
physician can sell upon his own prescription. Upon two con- 
victions the druggist loses license. 



WEST VIRGINIA. 351 



The Constitution of this State gives the legislature power to 
prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks within the State. 

After i860, and prior to 1872, this State was governed by 
the Republicans, and all Legislation was done by legislatures 
having Republican majorities. Since 1872 the legislation has 
been done by legislatures having Democratic mojorities, and 
the executives have been Democratic also. 

With reference to the workings of the present and such 
liquor laws as we have heretofore had, would say: that the 
restrictions imposed under the license system seem to be worth- 
less. When a person obtains a license to sell, he generally 
sells without molestation. The restrictions seem to contem- 
plate that no sales are to be made to intoxicate, but reverse 
results prevail from the nature of the business. The liquor 
law has no tendency to decrease the evils of alcoholic drink, 
except in counties and towns where the temperance element 
' is strong enough to withhold license. In fact, nearly all the 
prosecutions are for selling without license in places where 
the sale is prohibited by withholding license. Prosecutions 
by indictment and jury trial do not effect any good; delays 
are too great and perjury is too common. When the munici- 
pal authorities under their charter and ordinance take it in 
hand, illegal retailing can be in the main suppressed. Often, 
however, these authorities are in sympathy with the liquor in- 
terest and do not act, or acting it is done so irregularly as to 
render the proceedings defective. 

The temperence people of this State have endeavored for the 
past five years to get the legislature to submit to a vote of the 
people, an amendment to the constitution forever prohibiting 
the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors to be used 
as a beverage. The petitions to the legislature for this pur- 
pose have been numerous and signed by the best men of the 
State. It requires a two-thirds vote in each branch of the 
legislature to submit this question. It passed the lower House 
in 1883, but was defeated in the Senate by two votes. The 
people have elected men enough to the legislature to have 
accomplished their desire, but have been frequently betrayed 
through the influence brought to bear by the liquor interest. 
The minority party (the republicans) have generally supported 
the measure. It is the general feeling that if the people get 
an opportunity to vote, they will adopt prohibition, and for 



352 APPENDIX. 



this reason, the liquor interest, while desiring to be rid of the 
question, yet dare not let it come to a vote. The democratic 
party during the present session of legislature exerted their 
influence against the measure. The republicans during the 
last campaign would have nothing to do with it. Had the 
legislature therefore, submitted it to vote and the people had 
declared for it, we should have had a law which neither par- 
ty would have respected. There are thousands of voters in 
this State ready to join any party with the leading principle 
of prohibition engrafted in their platform. In more than two 
thirds of the counties, men are elected to the county court who 
will not grant license. Voters in this State are coming to believe 
more and more every day that there is no effectual way to be 
rid of the evil, except to banish the cause. 



KENTUCKY. 



SPECIAL LEGISLATION. — LOCAL OPTION. 



In this State "special legislation" prevails. There is a gen- 
eral "local option law," passed in 1874, under which a cer- 
tain number of voters may present a petition to the judge of 
the county court, who thereupon issues an order for an elec- 
tion in the "county, city, town or district" described in the 
petition, to determine whether "spirituous, vinous or malt 
liquors" may be sold at retail in the locality indicated. It 
does not apply to manufacturers, wholesale dealers and drug- 
gists, simply to "saloonkeepers," or as known in Kentucky 
"coffee-house keepers." This vote may be taken every two 
years and not oftener. It is not used generally. The diffi- 
culties in the way of "local option" when applied to a small 
extent of territory are too many and too great to justify its use 
except in extremity. If a man has nothing better than a hot 
iron with which to bore a hole through a board it is wise to use 
the iron. But an auger is better. When the question of the 
dram-shop is liable to be fought out every two years in a pop- 
ular election, it is not surprising that earnest men hesitate to 



KENTUCKY. 353 



enter the fight. Especially is this true in the South where 
the colored vote, which is notoriously unreliable on this ques- 
tion, is so large a factor. It serves a good purpose in afford- 
ing opportunity for agitation, and in some instances an actual 
victory over the saloon is accomplished in the use of its 
provisions. 

For several years, and especially in 1873, and subsequently, 
the Kentucky legislature has been familiar with bills whose 
title reads as follows, viz : "An act to prohibit the sale of 
ardent, vinous, malt, spirituous or intoxicating liquors, or the 
mixture thereof, in the County of Breathett," Jan. 31, 1873. 
Twenty-nine bills of similar import became laws in 1873, be- 
sides other laws authorizing a vote in certain localities. Some 
of these laws embraced a county, others a town or a precinct, 
or "near Harmony Church, in Garrard county." In the years 
1878, 1882, and 1884, especially the latter, the number of 
these bills was increased, amounting to 86 in 1884. Among 
these are a few acts to repeal, indicating the presence of oppo- 
sition forces. This fact and the kindred fact that a locality 
which is "no license" this year may be "license" the next if 
the tenure by which they hold prohibition is the general local 
option law of 1874, makes it very difficult to give reliable sta- 
tistics of the prohibition territory of the State. This is true 
almost everywhere in the south, and must be as long as the 
local option method prevails. For it is an ever beginning, 
never ending battle until it is established in the public mind 
that it is a crime to assist in maintaining the system of alco- 
holism, and liquor selling and stealing stand in the same re- 
lation before the law. No one would think of putting to a 
popular vote the question of licensing a person to steal. 

The present condition of the State as set forth by a com- 
mittee of gentleman in Louisville in November, 1884, is as 
follows, viz: 

"The following counties have adopted local option: Bullitt, 
Breckenridge, Hardin, Clay, Letcher, Bell, Cumberland, Bal- 
lard, Laurel, Martin, Pike, Wayne, Lewis, Perry, Owen, Hop- 
kins, Breathett, Washington, Rock Castle, Jackson, Owsly, 
Knox, Whitly, Robertson, Magoffin, Harlan, Leslie, Bracken, 
Union. Outside of these counties 150 odd magisterial dis- 
tricts in other counties and 50 odd towns in other counties, 
have adopted local option, thus bringing under local option 



54 APPENDIX. 



influences nearly three-fourths of the voting population of 
the State. Four districts in this county adopted it at the last 
August election." 

As an evidence of the practical working and effect of local 
option on the material prosperity and morals of the counties 
in which it has been adopted, we make this extract from a let- 
ter from the Elizabeth town News, August i, 1884, in which 
the writer compares Hardin and Bullitt counties : 

"About eleven years ago that county voted for local option 
law, and here is how she stands in comparison to Hardin 
county, according to the Auditor's report for the year 1883 : 
Total property listed for taxation, $1,797,158 ; amount of 
revenue paid into the treasury, $8,750.27 3 amount drawn out 
of the treasury, $6,718.83 ; leaving in the treasury, $2,034.44. 
Total property for Hardin county listed for taxation, $3,238,- 
271 amount paid into the treasury, $15,642 ; amount drawn 
out of the treasury, $20,911.76, making a deficit of $5,269.76. 
Bullitt county, without her whisky, pays into the treasury 
$2,034.44 more than she draws out, while Hardin county, with 
her whisky, annually draws out $5,269.76 more than she pays 
in. Since the local option law took effect in Bullitt county, 
its wealth has increased and expenses diminished. In the 
year 1883 the prosecutions in Bullitt county cost the State 
$417.83, while the prosecutions in Hardin county for the same 
year cost the State $3,748.83, nearly nine times that of Bullitt 
county. The population of Hardin county is about double 
that of Bullitt county. Then, on that basis, the prosecutions 
in this county should have cost double that of Bullitt, which 
is $835.76. Now take that from the actual cost, $3,748.83, 
and we have $2,913.07, which whisky annually adds to the 
cost of our criminal court. The State receives $1,075 f° r 1*~ 
cense in Hardin county, and pays out $2,613.09 to collect it 
according to the above statistics. In the last ten years 
Hardin county with her whisky has had thirteen cases of 
homicide before her courts, while Bullitt county without her 
whisky has had but one, and that was sent there from Hardin 
on a change of venue." 

Hardin county adopted local option by a large majority at 
the August election 1885. 



TENNESSEE. 355 



TEN-NESSEE. 



NO LIQUOR TO BE SOLD WITHIN FOUR MILES OF AN INSTITUTION 

OF LEARNING. 



Tennessee was admitted into the Union in 1796. From that 
time until the "Four Mile Law" was enacted, if there was any 
special temperance legislation, we are ignorant of what it 
was. For the following interesting account of the Four Mile 
Law and its workings, we are indebted to Mr. R. L. Hayes, of 
Nashville : 

"This law was passed March 19, 1877, by a democratic leg- 
islature, John C. Brown, Governor, and reads as follows : 
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Ten- 
nessee, that it shall not hereafter be lawful for any person to 
sell or tipple any intoxicating beverages within four miles of 
any institution of learning in the State, and any one violating 
the provisions of this act shall be guilty of misdemeanor, and 
upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not less than 
one hundred dollars, nor more than two hundred and fifty 
dollars, and imprisonment for a period of not less than one, 
nor more than six months. 

"Sec. 2. Be it further enacted that this act shall not apply 
to the sale of such liquors within the limits of any incorpora- 
ted town, nor to sales made by persons having licenses to 
make the same, at the date of this act, during the time for 
which such licenses were granted, nor sales by manufacturers 
of such liquors in wholesale packages or quantities. 

"Sec. 3. Be it further enacted that this act take effect from 
and after its passage, the public wellfare requiring it." 

An amendment making the law apply to towns and taxing 
districts of less inhabitants than five thousand was enacted by 
the democratic legislature of 1882, but has since been declar- 
ed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the State. 

Over one hundred towns in the State have abolished their 
corporation charters, in order to come under the provisions 
of the law, and it is safe to say that two-thirds of the State is 
now under its operation. In Judge N. W. McConnelFs judi- 
cial district (eight counties) there is not a single legalized 



35^ APPENDIX. 



dram-shop. Where the law has been enforced, crime and 
pauperism have decreased over sixty per cent. Judge Robert 
Cantrell, and Judge N. W. McConnell deserve great credit 
for the manner in which they have enforced the law in their 
districts. The law, where it has been enforced, has proven 
such a blessing that no political party dare attempt its repeal. 
It was rather by accident, than otherwise, that the law was 
secured. 

Gen. Johnson, who has a school up in themauntain district 
of the State, was tormented by several saloons, in vicinity; so 
much so, that he was compelled to get clear of the saloons, or 
remove his school. He came to Nashville and asked the leg- 
islature to give him the "Four Mile Law." This was on the 
eve of adjournment of the legislature, and it was hurried 
through without a dissenting vote; it was not passed as a tem- 
perance measure,but for the protection of Gen. Johnson's 
school. For two years the people of the State were ignorant 
of the fact that they had a law on the statute books equal, al- 
most, to the best prohibitory law in the nation. An adver- 
tisement giving this as one of the advantages possessed by 
Gen. Johnson's school, was the first thing that attracted the 
attention of the public. About this time a convention of Good 
Templars was held at Goodlettsville, a proposition to petition 
the legislature for a local option law was under consideration, 
and it was then suggested that as all laws enacted in Tennes- 
see, must be, to be in harmony with the constitution, of a gen- 
eral character, that is, apply to the whole State, and if such 
was the fact we had a better law than local option, because, 
with local option it would require a majority of all the voters 
in the district, whereas, with the "Four Mile Law" and five 
citizens could charter a school. A resolution was introduced 
calling for a committee to investigate the matter, which was 
agreed to by the convention, and the following parties ap- 
pointed by the chairman: R. L. Hayes, Jas. A. Herman, and 
J. M. Shivers Esq. This committee, it is needless to say, 
found the law to be all that their hopes expected; sub- com- 
mittees were appointed throughout the State, blank charters 
printed and distributed, and in less than one year half of the 
the State was under the operation of one of the best laws ever 
enacted for the protection of the home." 



NORTH CAROLINA. 357 



The last Legislature (1887) submitted a Constitutional Pro- 
hibitory Amendment to be voted on in September next, and the 
good people of Tennessee are now fighting valiently against 
the great enemy and destroyer of their homes and happiness, 
with fair prospects of winning the victory, 

Following is the constitutional amendment to be voted on 
by the people of Tennessee on the the 29th, Sept. next : 

Section 18. No person shall manufacture for sale, or sell, 
or keep for sale as a beverage, any intoxicating liquors what- 
ever, including wine, ale and beer. The General Assembly 
shall, by law, prescribe regulations for the enforcement of the 
prohibition herein contained, and shall thereby provide suit- 
able penalties for the violation of the provisions hereof. 



NORTH CAROLINA. 



The following is the gist of temperance laws in North 
Carolina : 

1. Has a minor law, which forbids selling to minors. 2. 
Has a Sunday law. 3. Has an election law, which is a con- 
stitutional provision. 4. Has a local option law, which 
authorizes townships to vote upon the question of selling 
liquor. 5. And the act which authorized the people of 
the State to vote upon the question of prohibition in 188 1. 
6. In addition to all which, has hundreds of acts of incor- 
poration prohibiting the sale of liquorwithin certain distances 
of churches, schools, etc. 



358 APPENDIX. 



SOUTH CABOLINA. 



NO LICENSE GRANTED OUTSIDE OF THE INCORPORATED CITIES, 
TOWNS AND VILLAGES. 



Prior to 1880, South Carolina was under general license 
laws. Intoxicants were sold at almost every crossroads gro- 
cery as well as elsewhere. In 1880, when Hon. Johnson Ha- 
good (democrat) was governor, the legislature enacted a bill 
of which the following is a part : "No license for the sale of 
spirituous or intoxicating liquors shall be granted in South 
Carolina outside of the incorporated cities, towns and villages 
of this State ; and it shall be unlawful for any person or per- 
sons to sell such liquors without a license so to do.'' The 
bill provided that when applications for license in incorpora- 
tions were made, the party applying was required to pay 
into the treasury of the county, in which said corporation was 
located, the sum $100 for county purposes, the $100 to be in 
addition to the license fee charged by the town. He must 
also be recommended by six respectable tax-payers of his 
neighborhood, and give a bond of $1000, with three good 
sureties, freeholders, owning property to the value of $500 each, 
over and above all liabilities "for the keeping of an orderly 
house, and for the due observance of all laws relating to the 
retailing of spirituous liquors." 

The sales of all wines, fruits prepared with spirituous 
liquors, bitters and other beverages of which spirituous 
liquors formed an ingredient, were subject to the conditions 
above set forth. 

The penalty for not observing requirements of the act is 
not less than $200 or six months imprisonment, or both fine 
and imprisonment in the discretion of the judge presiding. 
One half of the fine to go to the detective. The county com- 
missioners are charged specially with the duty of obtaining 
information as to violations of the law, and are to institute 
prosecutions therefor. 

The act further requires: "Willfully furnishing any intoxi- 
cating drink, by sale, gift or otherwise, to any person of known 
intemperate habits, or to any person when drunk or intoxica- 



SOUTH CAROLINA. 359 



ted, or to a minor, or to any insane person for use as a bever- 
age, shall be held and deemed a misdemeanor," subject to a 
fine of from $10 to $100, or imprisonment for from 10 to 60 
days. 

Wives, parents or guardians notifying saloonkeepers not to 
furnish by sale, or gift liquors to members of the family, such 
notification would continue in force for three months, subject 
to severe penalties. 

Sunday sales prohibited: "It shall not be lawful for any 
person to sell trade, or barter, any spirituous or malt liquors, 
•cider or wine on Sunday." Penalty $10 to $200, or imprison- 
ment 10 to 60 days. 

Druggists: "It shall not be lawful for any apothecary or 
druggist, except upon the prescription of a regular physician 
for a patient upon whom he is in attendence, or other person, 
to sell, trade, or barter any bitters of which spirituous or malt 
liquors are an ingredient, or any other medicated liquor, by 
the bottle or by the drink, to any person, unless such apothe- 
cary, druggist, or other person, shall obtain a license to sell 
such liquors as provided in this chapter." Penalties same as 
for selling without license. 

It is also provided that licenses must be exposed to public 
view; sales must be in rooms on public streets, without 
screens, curtains or other devices for preventing the passing 
public from fully viewing what may be transpiring within. 

Upon conviction for selling on Sunday, or without a license, 
besides the fines imposed, two years must elapse before license 
can be granted again. Should any be granted within that 
time they would be utterly without effect and afford no pro- 
tection. 

In 1882, Hon, Hugh Thompson, governor, democrat, the 
Legislature passed what is known as "A local option law." 

* * * * This law is the basis of the present temperance 
struggle in the State. It applies to incorporated cities, towns 
and villages only, and does not interfere with the prohibitory 
law in places outside of such municipalities. The law pio- 
vides that a special election for license or no license shall be 
ordered whenever a number of citizens equal to one third the 
votes cast at the preceding election shall so petition, and the 
status of the matter shall remain as decided at such election 
for two years hereafter. License shall expire at the close of 



360 APPENDIX. 



the year in which granted. The act does not apply to any 
place in which the sale of liquor is or shall be prohibited by 
special legislative enactment. Druggists may not sell except 
upon certificate of a practicing physician, in actual at- 
tendance upon a patient, nor may a physician give such certi- 
ficate except when in bona fide attendance upon a patient. 
Penalty, fine not less than $200, or imprisonment not less- 
than three months, or both. The law covers "bitters" and 
"fruits prepared with liquors as well as liquors themselves." 

In a number of municipalities in the State the sale of liquor 
is prohibited by special legislation. 

Under this act many towns to-day are under prohibition, 
while many have tried at the ballot box to overthrow the 
saloon power, but have been defeated. The Legislature of 
1883 amended the local option laws, so that elections could 
be held every two years instead of annually. Hence a town 
voting say December 1, 1884, and "no license" prevails, the 
election must stand for two years. 

What good has it all done? Well there are numerous sec- 
tions in this State where there is not a dram shop, and liquors 
cannot be had for love or money. I am reliably informed by 
the Presiding Elder of the Marion District covering large sec- 
tions of Marlboro,Marion and Henry counties, that there is not 
a place where liquors are legally sold throughout the bounds 
of his district. To my knowledge there is not a licensed bar- 
room in Marlboro, Marion, Henry, Spartanburg, Pickens, Lau- 
rens, Barnwell, and Union counties. Only one place has bar 
rooms in Sumpter, Clarendon, Kershaw, Chesterfild, Green- 
ville, Edgefield, Williamsburg, Pickens, Oconee counties. 
There are but two places in Colleton, Hampton, Georgetown^ 
Beaufort, and Anderson counties, where there are licensed bar 
rooms. There may be other counties which might be added 
to the list, but of them I am not informed. Aiken county at 
a late election voted whisky out of its bounds, but there is a 
hitch somewhere which the advocates of the law are now try- 
ing to overcome. If successful, bar rooms must go. The 
change is so marked where county seats are without barooms 
that grand juries are recommending that the people hold on 
to no license. Wherever the law is enforced peace, good or- 
der, etc., reigns. As there are but thirty-four counties in the 
State, the efficiency of the law is apparent. 



LOUISIANA. 361 



How does the law work? Like a charm when the officers 
do their duty. The law never has been a failure — all failures 
are to be attributed to the inefficiency of liquor committed 
councils. 

To what extent is the law enforced? In some places to the 
letter. But be it said to our sorrow in many sections the of- 
ficers in charge of the law are whisky pets, and consequently 
clandestine sales are passed by. The desire for office is so 
strong — even if it is for the little office of county commis- 
sioner — that such officers are afraid to act for fear of becom- 
ing unpopular. I have seen some such officers hanging around 
questionable places. Party before principles is the watch- 
word in many instances. But the battle is growing rapidly, 
and the notes of the bugle calling the good, law-abiding people 
to the front are sounding. Prohibition in South Carolina is 
in the near future. 



LOUISIANA. 



CLASSIFIED LICENSE AND LOCAL OPTION. 

In Louisiana the tax imposed upon the sale of intoxicating 
liquors ("anything to be drunk or eaten on the premises") is 
proportioned to the annual gross receipts of the business, as 
follows : There shall be one extra class ; Class A, $50,000 or 
more, $750 per annum; First, $37,000, $500 ; Second, $25,000, 
$400; Third, $20,000, $300; Fourth, $15,000, $250; Fifth, 
$10,000, $200; Sixth, $7,500, $150; Seventh, $5,000 to $7,500, 
$100; Eighth, $2,000 to $5,000, 75; Ninth, less than $2,000, 
$50. Provided no license shall be charged for selling re- 
freshments for charitable or religious purposes; provided that 
no establishment selling or giving away or otherwise dis- 
posing of any spirits, wines, alcoholic or malt liquors in less 
quantities than one pint shall pay less than $50. The State 
has a stringent Sunday law, requiring all stores, shops, gro- 
ceries, saloons, and all places of public business which are or 
may be conducted under any law of the State of Louisiana 



362 APPENDIX. 



or under any parochial or municipal ordinance, except those 
herein exempted, to be closed on Sundays and forbidding all 
giving, trading, bartering and selling on Sundays by the pro- 
prietor or employes of such establishment, and declaring it 
a misdemeanor to violate the provisions of this act, and to fix 
penalty for all violations of same, and to repeal all laws or 
parts of laws contrary or inconsistent therewith. 

Section 1, takes effect from and after the 31st of December, 
1886, and requires houses to close at 12 o'clock Saturday 
nights, and to remain closed for twenty-four hours. Sect. 2, 
Violators pay a fine not less than $25 and not more than $250, 
or imprisonment not less than ten nor more than thirty days, 
or both at the discretion of the court, except news-dealers, 
keepers of soda fountains, places of resort for recreation and 
health, watering places and public parks for the sale of ice, 
newspaper offices, printing offices, book-stores, drug-stores, 
apothecary shops, undertakers shops, public and private mar- 
kets, bakeries, dairies, livery stables, railroads-steam or horse, 
hotels, round-houses, steam-boats and other vessels, ware- 
houses, restaurants, telegraph offices, and theatres, or any 
place of amusement, provided no intoxicating liquors are 
sold on the premises, except when actually administered or 
prescribed by a practicing physician in the discharge of his 
professional duties in case of sickness, physicians administer- 
ing liquors may charge therefor. The law was for two or 
three Sundays fought, but the Supreme Court has passed upon 
it, and all the violators have been fined $25 each, and now 
the law is rigidly enforced and obeyed. Local option pre- 
vails in some fourteen parishes, and others are likely to fall 
into line soon. Prohibition conventions have been held and 
largely attended in the State, and the cause is gaining strength 
every day.* 



*The anti-prohibitionists are quite fond of the assertion that State prohi- 
bition is worse than a failure in Maine, Iowa and Kansas, and that as a fact 
more whisky is sold in those States and with more damaging results to 
society than in other States, while no revenue is derived from the traffic. Is 
it not strange that the good people of those States should be so long de- 
ceived about this matter, or that, realizing the fact that prohibitory laws are 
not only ineffectual but actually detrimental to the best interests of society, 



DELAWARE GEORGIA. 363 



DELAWARE. 



A prohibitory law was passed by a whig legislature in 1847, 
which was declared unconstitutional in 1848. In 1853 the 
whigs passed a local option law and in 1855 an American 
party legislature re-enacted prohibition. Both these laws 
were repealed by the same party, which is still in force. Li- 
censes cost but $xoo a year, and little attention is paid to the 
law. 



GEORGIA. 



Local option, high license, and prohibition by special leg- 
islation. Over 100 counties out of 137 are under prohibition. 
The laws are generally enforced. Licenses where granted 
are very high, and many towns prohibit the sale by this me- 
thod. In Gordonsville, for example, the fee for license is 
$100,000. The State will soon be free from the liquor traffic. 
All temperance legislation has come through the democratic 
party. 

they do not rise up in their majesty and demand the instantaneous repeal of 
.such laws ? 

If there is any thing in the way of their repeal and abrogation I am not 
aware of it. What is to hinder the people of Kansas, who have been suf- 
fering so long irom the evil effects of prohition, from abolishing the obnox- 
ious constitutional amendment and returning to the old system or of adopt- 
ing a different one for the regulation of the evil ? Will Governor Ross 
and others of his opinion answer this practical question and tell us why it 
is that those people of Maine who have been suffering so terribly from the 
evils of prohibition do not take prompt and vigorous steps to rid themselves 
of the crime breeding policy which has prevailed in that State fo v about 
forty years ? Will they pretend to say that those people know less about 
their own business than the immaculate, infallible representatives of the 
True Blues of Texas ? There are a few men in the State of Maine, who 
may be credited with ordinary common sense and political foresight. 



364 APPENDIX. 



ALABAMA. 



This State has a law providing for the granting of local op- 
tion upon petition to the legislature, and also a large number 
of special prohibitory laws covering localities, counties and 
territory within specified distances of churches, school, etc. 
The laws are generally well enforced. The sentiment of the 
State in favor of prohibition is growing, and Alabama maybe 
safely counted among the promising States. A general pro- 
hibition bill passed one house in 1883. Legislation has been 
by democratic assemblies. 



AEKANSAS. 



The question of license or no license must be voted upon 
every two years. The license fee is about $700. More than 
one-fourth the State refuses to grant license, and the sale of 
liquor is prohibited within three miles of churches and school 
houses. The law was passed by a Democratic legislature 
ini88i. 



MISSISSIPPI. 



A general license law is in force in Mississippi, which re- 
quires a petition signed by a majority of men over twenty-one 
years of age. Prior to 1876 the consent of a mojority of the 
women over eighteen was also required. The fee cannot be 
less than $200 nor more than $1000. More than one-half of 
the State is under prohibition through special enactment. The 



FLORIDA. 365 



legislature of 1884 passed over one hundred local prohibitory 
laws. The laws are well enforced. The State is and always 
has been Democratic. 



FLOKIDA. 



LICENSE WITH LOCAL OPTION FEATURE, 



Florida was admitted into the Union March 3rd, 1845, an d 
from that time until 1883 the tendency of temperance legisla- 
tion was in the direction of rather liberal laws. 

Early in 1885 the General Assembly enacted a stringent li- 
cense law, with a local option feature. It prohibits the issue 
of license except upon petition of a majority of the registered 
voters of the precinct or election district in- which the dram- 
shop is to be located. Each signature to such petition must 
be attested by two responsible witnesses and published for 
two weeks before the application is made to the county 
board. Dealers have sought by every species of fraud to 
evade the law. Twice or three times legal questions have 
been raised against the constitutionality, and other features of 
the statute, before the Supreme Court, and have been decided 
in favor of the law. 

Much good has been accomplished, even under the disad- 
vantages of an experiment. The saloons have been reduced 
in number and entirely suppressed within six counties. The 
Legislature was democratic, but all parties joined in passing 
the law. 

Hon. W. D. Bloscham, a democrat, was the governor who 
approved the law. 



366 APPENDIX. 



MICHIGAN. 



DRAM SHOP TAX OF $300. — LOCAL OPTION MAY BE ADOPTED IN 
VILLAGES OF A CERTAIN CLASS. 



In Michigan, a clause prohibitory of license was made a 
part of the state constitution in 1850, prepared by a conven- 
tion largely democratic. It read as follows : "The legislature 
shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the 
sale of spirituous or other liquors." This, it will be seen, 
was one year eailier than the enactment of the celebrated 
"Maine Law", and under this constitutional provision Michi- 
gan had no legalized liquor traffic for twenty-five years. The 
first prohibitory statute, however, was not enacted until the 
month of Feb., 1853. Robert McClelland, democrat, was Gov- 
ernor. The legislature was also democratic. This law was 
declared unconstitutional in 1854; and was, in substance, re- 
enacted by the first republican legislature, in 1855. It was 
several times amended, usually to its disadvantage, and final- 
ly repealed by a republican legislature, in 1875. In 1875, 
the present tax law was enacted, and the above cited consti- 
tutional provision was submitted to be striken out; both were 
strictly republican measures. In 1881, and again in 1883, 
the temperance people petitioned largely to have a prohibi- 
tory amendment of the constitution submitted to a popular 
vote, but were both times refused, the legislature being each 
time strongly republican. 

Under the present law the dram shop tax where all kinds of 
intoxicating liquors are sold is $300. The sale of liquors to 
minors and on Sundays and election days is forbidden. The 
saloons may also be closen after a designated hour at night, 
and on legal holidays, but these provisions of the law are not 
very thoroughly enforced. 

In 1883, by a gross blunder which passed without observa- 
tion until too late, an act was passed which extends the priv- 
ilege of local option to villages of a certain class, embracing 
about one-half the villages of the State. The law grants pow- 
er to the authorities to regulate, restrict ox prohibit the sale of 



CALIFORNIA. 367 



liquors. The word "prohibit" was not noticed by the oppo- 
nents of prohibition in the legislature until too late to recon- 
sider the measure, as its friends had hastened to Governor Be- 
gole and secured his approval as soon as it was passed. Com- 
paratively few of the villages have availed themselves of the 
protection the measure affords. 

A bill to submit the question of a constitutional amendment 
to a vote of the people was again introduced in the legislature 
in 1885, but again failed to receive the requisite two-thirds and 
was defeated. 

The Proposed Constitutional Amendment was recently 
(1887) voted on and defeated by a small majority. The re- 
turns of that election show that the county vote was largely 
in favor of the Constitutional Amendment, but the city of De- 
troit giving an overwhelming majority against it, it was de- 
feated. 



CALIFORNIA. 



There are no local option or prohibitory laws in Califor- 
nia. The constitution of the State gives the supervision of 
the saloons to the Boards of Supervisors of the counties. In 
a few of these the supervisors have attempted to exercise 
their police powers by imposing high licenses, but in every 
case have been defeated. 'The League of Freedom,' so-call- 
ed, an organization of distillers, brewers, wholesale dealers 
and saloon-keepers, covering the entire State, controls both 
political parties, and elect the judges and prosecuting attor- 
neys, so that while high license ordinances are admitted to 
be constitutional, practically their enforcement is impossible. 

In 1882 the democratic state convention adopted a sound- 
ing resolution against "sumptuary laws." As there were no 
sumptuary laws on the statute books of the State, the resolu- 
tion was understood by everyone to mean the repeal of the 
laws preventing the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday. 
The resolution was satisfactory to the league. The republi- 



368 APPENDIX. 



can convention met several weeks afterward, and the tempe- 
rence people made strenuous efforts to obtain from it a clear 
and emphatic declaration in favor of the Sunday statutes with 
proper provisions for their vigorous enforcement. The con- 
vention was also asked to declare in favor of local option. In 
answer, the temperence people obtained the aggressive (?) 
declaration, that the republican party of California was in fa- 
vor of maintaining Sunday as a day of "rest and recreation" 
— which to the German republicans meant beer-gardens, 
dance-halls, etc., etc. As neither party promised anything 
for sobriety and decency on any day of the week, a conven- 
tion of temperance people in favor of separate political action 
was called to meet later on in San Francisco. The conven- 
tion which assembled in answer to this call was in every 
respect a grand one. A clear, strong prohibitory platform 
was adopted, and Dr. R. H. McDonald was nominated for 
Governor. 

The democrats carried the State, and elected a legislature 
overwhelmingly democratic. Their first act was to repeal the 
Sunday laws. The dram- shops, dance-halls, beer-dives, dago- 
dens, and all other places of vile and criminal resort are now 
kept open on Sunday, as they had previously been, except in 
some few places. The fact is, that the whisky and beer busi- 
ness in California is sheltering itself behind the grape culture, 
and as long as the idea prevails there that the use of pure 
wines is conducive to health and promotive of temperance, 
no effective legislation can be had against the saloons. 

Several years ago a local option law was passed, but as 
neither the democrats nor republicans claim the honor of it, 
it is not worth while to go back to the record of it. It was 
declared unconstitutional, but no lawyer believes it was so. 

The present legislature is largely republican. The State 
prohibition committee, and the executive officers of the Good 
Templars, have sent out two petitions to be signed by the 
people, one of these covering the idea of local option, and 
the other providing for the submission of a constitutional 
amendment. These petitions will test the pretended friend- 
ship of the republican party to the cause of temperance, and 
the right of the people to vote whisky out of the community 
or State. Finally, there has never been any really sensible 
and effective legislation upon the temperance question in Cal- 



COLORADO. 369 



lifornia. The good Templars have had a corps of able and 
earnest lecturers in the field for several years, and they have 
been doing good work for Prohibition. The outlook for the 
:State is encouraging, and it is confidently said that California 
will not be the last State to write prohibition upon her shield. 



COLORADO. 



John Hipp, 

The following are the main features of our liquor laws. 
They were all passed by a republican legislature and gover- 
nor. Our State being overwhelmingly republican. Our pres- 
ent Legislature consists of 54 Republicans and 21 Democrats. 

(1.) In the country districts the county commissioners are 
allowed to control sales less than one quart ; above that 
•quantity the permit is given by the State government, and the 
commissioners cannot regulate or abolish the sale. 

(2.) The board of trustees or common council, of every 
corporated town or city shall have exclusive authority to 
license saloons, and all places where intoxicating liquors are 
sold by quantities less than one quart. But saloons are open 
in nearly every town seven days in the week and as many 
hours as profitable. Greeley, Colorado Springs, Evans, Love- 
Hand, Longmont, and one or two small towns have prohibition 
by special legislation, or by electing prohibition aldermen. 

(3.) We have a clause in the Constitution demanding that 
the General Assembly shall by law prohibit the manufacture 
and sale of adulterated liquors, but no attention is paid to it 
whatever. 

(4.) Any one suffering through a common drunkard can 
give notice to all saloonkeepers not to sell to this drunkard, 
.and if sales can afterward be proved to have been made, ex- 
emplary damages and costs may be collected from the one 
.selling, and such sale also forfeits any lease on such premises, 
but the damages must be collected from the saloon-keeper alone. 
'This is also a dead-letter, as few saloon-keepers have enough 
property to satisfy such claim. 

(5.) The Republican party in its state convention last 



37° APPENDIX. 



summer promised to submit a prohibitory amendment to the 
people. Petitions are being widely circulated to ask them to 
fulfill this promise, but there seems to be no probability of its 
being done. 



OKEGON. 



The legislation in Oregon has been hardly commensurate 
with the enterprise of the temperance people. In few states 
has more or better work been done in proportion to the pop- 
ulation, or the prohibitory sent been more active and clear 
cut. 

Yet the Legislature has steadily refused the demand of the 
people for the submission of a constitutional amendment, and 
what legislation has been is in the direction of license. A li- 
cense law was passed in 1851, of the same general character 
as the contemporaneous license laws of other states. An act 
was passed this last winter, receiving the approval of the gov- 
ernor Feb. 17, making the license fee $300 for spirituous and 
S200 for malt liquors, providing that no license shall issue for 
less than six months. Bond in 1,000 is required; sale to mi- 
nors, drunkards and on Sundays is forbidden. A petition is 
required signed by majority of all voters in precinct and 
greater than any remonstrance from same precinct. Said pe- 
tition must be published four weeks. Penalty for violation is 
a fine not less than $50 nor more than $200, and it is made 
the duty of every grand jury to make strict inquiry and return 
bills of indictment against all violators of the law. 



NEW HAMPSHIRE. 



New Hampshire has a prohibitory law, passed by a legisla- 
ture principally American and Republican in 1855, Ralph 
Metcalf, American, Governor. Efforts have several times 
been made for its repeal, and a Republican Legislature, some 



NEVADA — NEBRASKA. 3 7 I 



two or three years ago, came within one vote of accomplish- 
ing its destruction. The law is reported not generally well 
enforced, but satisfactory in its workings when officials do 
their duties. 



NEVADA. 



Nevada is a comparatively new State, and has had little in 
the way of either temperence legislation or agitation, though 
interest in the general subject is on the increase and some ef- 
forts have been made too late to secure somewhat stringent 
legislation. The declared object, however, is to provide 
"revenue" rather than to restrict the traffic, To this end a 
bill was introduced by Mr. Fassett on Jan. 13th, 1885, and 
soon after passed the house, but up to the present writing 
(Feb. 13.) had not passed the senate. It raises the license 
fee to $50 per month in towns of five hundred or more inha- 
bitants, and in all cases to $10 per month, except for persons 
selling in connection with houses of entertainment for travel- 
ers, one mile or more outside the limits of a town or city, 
who shall pay $15 per quarter. The proposed law prohibits 
the sale on any election day. 

The present law is a general license law, requiring a fee of 
about $40 per quarter to be paid to the State, and subject to 
further fee according to municipal regulations where liquor is 
sold. It prohibits selling or giving to minors under penalty 
of $25 to $100, or imprisonment not to exceed fifty days, or 
both. The law is not generally enforced. It was passed by 
a republican legislature and approved by Governor L. R. 
Bradley a democrat. 



NEBEASKA. 



The law of Nebraska differs from those in other States in 
this, that while in many of them license is the law with Pro- 
hibition as the option, in Nebraska Prohibition is the law 



37 2 APPENDIX. 



with high license as the option. In other words, except 
in cities of more than 10,000 inhabitants, Prohibi- 
tion is the normal condition under the law, unless the high 
license option is taken advantage of. The law was adopted 
by a democratic legislature in 1881. The license fee can not 
be less than $500 nor more than $1,000. Treating is a mis- 
demeanor. When a drunkard becomes a charge upon the 
town his keeping may be collected from the liquor sellers. 
For a detailed statement of the law and its workings, see 
Handbook of 1884, pages 56 to 65. 



MINNESOTA. 



A prohibitory law was passed by a democratic legislature 
in 1852, so far as spiritous liquors were concerned. In 1870 
a local option law was passed. Until the recent session of 
the legislature (1887) the license was low, from $50 to $100. 
At that session the license was increased and the bill goes 
into effect on the fourth day of July, 1887. Under the amen- 
ded law the license for selling "liquid damnation" in towns 
and cities of over 5,000 inhabitants is $1,000. Smaller towns 
$500. The new law in no way affects local option which re- 
mains in force and prevails in some of the towns. Not well 
enforced when carried by small majorities. 



MISSOURI. 



The democratic legislature of 1883 enacted one of the most 
stringent high license and local option laws possible. The 
written consent of the tax payers of the district must be ob- 
tained before license is granted, and the fee is from $274 to 
$600. Though the law is enforced with much vigor in various 



texas. 373 



places, it is not satisfactory as a temperance measure, and 
active efforts are in progress to secure a constitutional amend- 
ment. 



TEXAS. 



LICENSE AND LOCAL OPTION. 



The Constitution of 1845 (art. 7, sec. 27), contained the fol- 
lowing provision: "The Legislature shall have power to lay 
an income tax and to tax all persons pursuing any occupa- 
tion, trade, or profession; provided that, the term occupation 
shall not be construed to apply to pursuits, either agricultu- 
ral or mechanical. Art. 8., Sec. 1, of the Constitution of 1875, 
contains substantially the same provision. 

In 1846 an act was passed imposing a license tax upon the 
traffic in intoxicating liquors, and provided for its enforce- 
ment with other salutary restrictive regulations by appropriate 
penalties and forfeitures. In 1848 the law was amended and 
the "license tax" "for the use of the State" fixed at $250 upon 
persons selling in quantities less than a quart. Some, if not 
all, of the county courts under the authority supposed to have 
been conferred upon them by the act of March 16, 1848, or- 
ganizing them and defining their powers and jurisdiction, and 
acting under that section which authorized them to levy coun- 
ty taxes upon all proper subjects of taxation enumerated by 
the legislature at the same session, imposed a county tax upon 
the sale of intoxicating liquors. In 1858 or 1859 one Baker, 
a saloon keeper in Panola county resisted the payment of the 
county tax, and after paying same under protest brought suit 
against the county to recover back the amount so paid on the 
ground that the sale of intoxicating liquors was not under the 



374 APPENDIX. 



State law a proper subject of taxation. It was contended that 
the license for which those engaged in the traffic had to pay 
$250 was not designed as a means of raising revenue for the 
coffers of the State, but for regulating purposes exclusively. 

The Supreme Court in the same case, (Baker vs. Panola 
county ; 30 Texas, 87), adopted the same view of the law 
and held that the counties had no right whatever to levy any 
tax on the business. In 1858 a law was enacted providing for 
the collection of a tax from each and every person or firm 
engaged in the sale of goods, wares, and merchandise, vinous 
or spirituous liquors when sold in quantities of a quart or 
more, of twenty cents on each hundred dollars value of the 
article purchased for sale, etc. In 1862 the tax was increased 
to twenty-five cents on the one hundred dollars, and a tax of 
$50 was imposed on every person keeping a distillery of spi- 
rituous liquors ; of twenty dollars upon every brewery, and 
twenty-five dollars upon every person keeping a beer-shop. 
In 1866 the laws of the State were generally remodeled to suit 
the changed condition of the State with reference to the re- 
construction acts of Congress. The liquor laws of the State 
were recast with the great mass of legislation which had 
taken place during the allegiance of the State to the Confed- 
eracy. During the session of the Legislature of 1866 two acts 
were passed each imposing a tax of $300 on retailers of in- 
toxicating liquors. The first, passed October 27th, required 
the retailer to execute and deliver to the county treasurer a 
bond with certain specified conditions, and then to pay into 
the county treasury a license tax at the rate of $300 per an- 
num. The second act, passed November 6th, 1866, provides 
that the retailer, who is "pursuing or about to pursue" this 
** occupation" of selling such liquors in quantities less than a 
quart, shall be assessed with a tax at the rate of $300 per an- 
num for the benefit of the State treasury. 



TEXAS. 375 

This double-tax was resisted by some of the saloon-keep- 
ers, and the two acts held valid by the Supreme Court in case 
of Napier vs. Hodges (31 Texas 287). The constitutionality 
of this act and similar laws imposing occupation taxes was 
upheld in the same case as it had been in Aulanier vs. the 
Governor, 1 Texas, 653 ; State vs. Stephens, 4 Texas, 137 ; 
State vs. Bock, 9 Texas, 369 ; and many other cases. The 
act of August 15th, 1870, superseded the law of 1866 and that 
of 22nd of April, 1871, expressly repealed it (see Wood vs. 
Stirman, 37 Texas, 584,) and since that date the State tax has 
been. I believe, $300, Counties have uniformly, I think, lev- 
ied half that amount, and incorporated towns and cities have 
usually exacted the same, amounting in the aggregate to 
$600.* The constitution of 1875 embodied a local option 
provision in the usual form. On the 24th day of April, 1876, 
the legislature passed the law known as the local option law, 
in compliance with the constitutional requirement. It has 

* Attorney General Jas. S. Hogg, in a recently published open letter at- 
tempts to palm off up on the people of Te#as, a stupendous falacy in the 
form of statistics, showing that the occupation taxes collected from the sa- 
loon-keepers and whisky dealers of the State exceed by several hundred 
thousand dollars, the total amount paid out by the State in the prosecution 
of all offenses known to our criminal code. The Attorney General failed to 
enlighten the people upon a very material subject matter of inquiring in or- 
der to a proper understanding of the statistics, that is what expenses are in- 
cluded in the amount paid by the State and what sums are not so in- 
cluded ? 

Every lawyer and other person who is at all familiar with the laws of 
Texas, must know that the State pays no part of the costs and expenses, in- 
curred in the prosecution or misdemeanor cases which constitute by far the 
greater number growing out of the liquor traffic in general and the saloon 
in particular. In felony cases, not capital the District Attorneys get $30 in 
each case resulting in conviction, nothing when the accused is acquitted. 
In capital cases they are allowed $50 for convictions. — Provision is also 
made for the payment of fees to Sheriff's and Clerks and to the attached 
witnesses in felony cases. The great amount of additional expenses pro- 
duced by the sale and consumption of liquor is sustained by the counties. 
.and by the people individually in being forced to attend Court or ju 
witness, etc.. which amount is beyond the reach of reliable statistics. 



376 APPENDIX. 



been tried in a large number of counties, in some of which it 
has worked well ; in others it is said to have done no per- 
ceptible good on account of the failure of the officers and the 
people generally to do any thing towards its enforcement. 
Two or three amendments have been made with a view to- 
making it more effective, but it seems that little has been 
done by the legislature to remedy the defects which stand int 
the way of its satisfactory enforcement. Mention has already 
been made of the amendment passed by the nineteenth leg- 
islature, that never found its way upon the statute book. 

The Twentieth Legislature has recently passed a bill 
amending the law in many particulars, and it is believed that 
it is now in a condition that it may be made instrumental ia 
the accomplishment of much good in the suppression of the 
evils of intemperance. In July, 1876, a law was passed mak- 
ing it a misdemeanor punishable by fine of not more than 
$100 to get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in a 
public place ; also, denning and punishing drunkenness in of- 
fice: these laws have not been enforced and may be consid- 
ered as practically inoperative. Public sentiment has gen- 
erally been opposed to a rigid enforcement of the law against 
public drunkenness and the courts and juries are always in 
doubt whether a man is drunk or a natural fool when brought 
up for trial. On the first day of October, 1879, tne "Bell 
Punch Law" went into effect, which was intended to regulate 
the amount of tax by the number of drinks that were sold. 
Every saloon-keeper and beer-dealer in the State was required 
to purchase a bell punch, and if he desired to sell both spirit- 
uous and malt liquors, he was required to provide himself 
with two. It was not a success. It was everywhere violated 
with impunity. On the fourth day of April 1881 the Bell 
Punch Law was repealed under suspension of the rules, and 
the license system readopted substantially in its present form. 
It is not necessary to elaborate its provisions. They are sim- 



texas. 377 

ilar to those of other States where the system prevails. The 
State tax is $300, county may be $150, and incorporated 
towns and cities may levy the same amount as is levied or 
may be levied by the counties. The last Legislature made some 
salutary amendments to the law including the inhibition of 
the use of screens, obscene pictures, games of chance, music, 
etc., which have a tendency to attract the unsuspecting and 
curious. The Twentieth Legislature, by the requisite number 
of both houses submitted to the people of Texas the following 
constitutional amendment to be voted upon by the people of 
the State on the first Thursday in August, next, (1887) : 

"To amend Section 20, of Article 16, of the Constitution of 
the State of Texas. 

"Section i. Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State 
of Texas, That Section 20, of Article 16, of the Constitution 
be so amended as to read as follows, to-wit: " Section 20. 
The manufacture, sale, and exchange of intoxicating liquors 
except for medicinal, mechanical, sacramental and scientific 
purposes, is hereby prohibited in the State of Texas. The 
Legislature shall, at the first session held after the adoption 
of the Amendment, enact necessary laws to put this provision 
into effect. 

"Section. 2. The foregoing Constitutional Amendment 
shall be submitted to a vote of the qualified electors of the 
State of Texas, at an election to be held for that purpose on 
the first Thursday in August, 1887, at which election all voters 
favoring said proposed Amendment shall have written or prin- 
ted on their ballots, "For State Prohibition," and those voting 
against said Amendment shall have written or printed on their 
ballots, "Against State Prohibition." The Governor of the 
State is hereby directed to issue the necessary publication for 
said election under the existing election laws of the State." 

It is unnecessary in this outline to speak at length upon the 
practical results of our legislation upon the traffice. It is 
unnecessary to say more than appears in the body oi this 



378 APPENDIX. 



book upon the subject of local option and the proposed con- 
stitutional amendment. 

I would like to mention the names of those who have 
worked for so many years in the face of discouragement in 
the temperance cause, to bring about the submission of the 
amendment which is the subject of this important canvass, 
but I could not hope to do so without disparaging those 
whose names I would be unable to give. I shall venture, 
however, to give the names of Col. E. L. Dohoney, of Paris; 
and of Dr. J. B. Cranfill, of the Waco, (formerly Gatesville) 
Adva?ice. They have worked faithfully and fought valiantly, 
but I fear, at times they have not had enough of that suaviter 
in modo so necessary in the direction of the popular mind. 
While they with others may have been "as wise as serpents," 
I am not prepared to say that they have ever been "as harm- 
less as doves." The effort to organize a prohibition party in 
1886 was, I think, a mistake. I thought so at the time, al- 
though I was in full sympathy with the principal object in 
view — the destruction of the liquor traffic. Especially did 
I, with many others, deprecate, the tone of the resolution 
passed by the Prohibition Convention at Dallas during the 
late canvass in which the gallant standard-bearer of the 
Democratic party was referred to in the most disrespectful 
terms, because his action in the local option canvass in the 
county of his home indicated that he did not, from some 
cause, favor the measure. 

When I thought of the heroic deeds of his youth upon the 
frontier of Texas; when I thought of the many laurels he had 
won as the leader of a Texas brigade in the lost cause; when 
I was reminded of his eminent services in the senate of my be- 
loved State; when I thought furthermore that he was the stand- 
ard-bearer of the great party of the people, I was pained in- 
deed to know that a convention of so many respectable and 
w r ell-meaning citizens of Texas in their intemperate zeal for 



texas. 379 



the promotion of a righteous cause, would so far forget them- 
selves as to denounce him as "a saloon stump-speaker," be- 
cause, forsooth, he had made one unfortunate, though honest, 
mistake. Governor Ross may cast his vote as he pleases, and 
it may be either for or against the Amendment, yet we must 
ever honor and respect him for the gallant and patriotic deeds 
of his life, not the least among which was his recent official 
action in recommending to the Legislature to give to our 
people a chance to vote whisky out of the State, and in sign- 
ing and approving the resolution in spite of the "True Blues" 
and their loud and vociferous clamoring impeaching the De- 
mocracy of the measure, I am glad, however, at this time to 
know that the erroneous views heretofore entertained by our 
people upon this great subject and the violent and abusive 
methods which have prevailed among many of the temperance 
workers in our State in the past have given way to a more en- 
lightened public sentiment, and that bitter personalities have 
been everywhere superseded by a united, conservative and pa- 
triotic effort to have the great question settled upon the eter- 
nal principles of truth and of public and private justice.* 



One of Illinois' most gifted writers and orators, Col. Robt. 
G. Ingersoll, who by the way, as is well known, is not in any 
way connected with the " protestant priesthood" who are 
charged with the authorship of the heresy of prohibition has 
the following to say upon the subject of the traffic in whisky : 

" I am aware that there is a prejudice against any man who 
manufactures alcohol. I believe that from the time it issues 
from the coiled and poisonous worm in the distillery until it 
empties into the jaws of death, dishonor and crime, it demor- 
alizes everybody that touches it from its source to where it 



* See note on page 172, was intended for this page, but by mistake inser- 
ted in connection with the review of the "True Blue" platform with which 
it has no connection. 



380 APPENDIX. 



ends. I do not believe that anybody can contemplate the 
object without being prejudiced against the liquor crime. All 
we have to do, gentlemen, is to think of the stream of death, 
of the suicides, of the ignorance, of the destitution, of the 
little children tugging at the faded and withered breast of 
weeping and despairing mothers, of wives asking for the bread 
of the men of genius it has wrecked, the men struggling with 
imaginary serpents produced by this devilish thing; and 
when you think of the jails, alms-houses, of the asylums, of 
the prisons, of the scaffolds upon either hand, I do not wonder 
that every thoughful man is prejudiced against this damnable 
stuff called alcohol. Intemperence cuts down youth in its 
vigor, manhood in its strength and old age in its weakness. 
It breaks the father's heart, bereaves the doting mother, ex- 
tinguishes natural affection, erases conjugal attachment, blasts 
parental hope and brings down mourning age in sorrow to the 
grave. It produces weakness, not strength, sickness, not 
health, death, not life. It makes wives widows, children or- 
phans, fathers fiends, and all of them paupers and beggars. It 
feeds rheumatism, nurses gout, welcomes epidemic, invites 
cholera, imports pestilence and embraces consumption. It 
covers the land with idleness, misery and crime. It fills your 
jails, supplies your almshouses, and demands your asylums. 
It engenders controversies, fosters quarrels and cherishes 
riots. It crowds your penitentiaries and furnishes victims for 
your scaffolds. It is the life blood of the gambler, the ele- 
ment of the burglar, the prop of the highwayman, and the 
support of the midnight incendiary. It countenances the liar, 
respects the thief, esteems the blasphemer. It violates the ob- 
ligation, reverences fraud and honors infamy. It defames 
benevolence, hates love, scorns virtue and slanders innocence; 
it incites the father to butcher his helpless offspring, helps 
the husband to massacre his wife and the child to grind the 
parricidal ax. It burns up men, consumes women, detests 
life, curses God, despises heaven. It suborns witnesses, 
nurses perjury, defiles the jury box and stains the judicial 
ermine. It degrades the citizen, debases the Legislature, dis- 
honors statesmen and disarms the patriot. It brings shame, 
not honor ; terror, not safety . despair, not hope ; misery, not 
happiness, and with malevolence of a fiend calmly surveys its 
frightful desolation and unsatisfied havoc. It poisons felicity, 



TEXAS. 381 

kills peace, ruins morals, blights confidence, slays reputation 
and wipes out national honor, then curses the world and 
laughs at its ruin. It does all that and more. It murders the 
soul. It is the sum of all villainies, the father of all crimes, 
the mother of all abominations, the devil's best friend and 
God's worst enemy."* 



CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 



HOW MADE IN THE DIFFERENT STATES. 



"To amend the Constitutions of Alabama, California, Col- 
orado, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts? 
Michigan, Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia the proposed 
amendment must be submitted by a three-fourths vote of one 
legislature, and then go to people for ratification. To amend 
the constitutions of Arkansas, Minnesota and Missouri the 
proposed amendment must be submitted by a majority vote 
of one legislature. To amend the constitutions of Indiana, 
Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Rhode 
Island, Virginia, and Wiscinsin the proposed amendment 
must be submitted by a majority vote of two successive leg- 
islatures, and then adopted by a majority vote of the people, 
except in Rhode Island, where a three-fifth vote is required 
to adopt. In Georgia, Florida, Nevada, and South Carolina 
the proposed amendment must pass two successive legisla- 
tures by a three-fourths vote before it goes to the people. In 
South Carolina, however, the second vote in the legislature 
must be after the amendment has been passed upon by the 
voters. In Maryland, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Ohio 
a three-fifths vote of one legislature can submit an amend- 



*The above should have followed the article on Illinois, but was on 
in making up the forms, so I insert it here. — [Author. 



382 APPENDIX. 



ment, and it can then be adopted by a majority vote of the 
people. In Connecticut an amendment must be proposed by 
the house of representatives, approved by a three-fourths vote 
of the succeeding legislature, and then sent to the towns ta 
be ratified. In Delaware an amendment must be proposed 
by a three-fourths vote of the legislature, and, after having 
been extensively published, ratified by a three-fourths vote of 
the succeeding legislature, when it becomes a part of the 
constitution without a vote of the people. In Tennessee it 
requires a majority vote of one legislature and a three-fourths- 
vote of the succeeding one to submit an amendment, when a 
majority of the people adopts. In Vermont an amendment 
can be submitted by the Council of Censors, and then adopt- 
ed by a convention called for the purpose. In New Hamp- 
shire an amendment must be submitted by a convention, and 
adopted by a three-fourths vote of the people. In Kentucky 
the constitution can only be amended by a convention called 
for the purpose." 



CONCLUSION. 



In giving a summary of the liquor laws of the several states 
within the limits prescribed for this Appendix, the author has 
been forced to condense within a very small space the laws of 
many of the states, but has endeavored to cull from the great 
mass of prohibitory and restrictive legislation, such as will best 
serve to illustrate the practical workings of the different sys- 
tems in force. These systems are found to be very nearly 
similar in the various states where they prevail, and to give 
them in full or even in a condensed form as they appear upon 
the statute books, many of which are copied from other states,* 



CONCLUSION. 383 



would be a useless and even a burdensome repetition. It is 
hoped that a perusal of those which are given will not be al- 
together unprofitable to the reader.* 

* I fail to find anything in the history of the practical operation of the li- 
cense system of the foregoing states which recommends them as effectual 
remedies for the evils of drunkenness and intemperance generally. Those 
who advocate high license as the best means of dealing with the traffic 
should go to work to procure reliable statistics showing by actual expe- 
rience that it will work out the desired reform. While hunting up statistics 
to prove that prohibitory laws are total failures, and even worse than fail- 
ures, they should devote at least a portion of their time and talents in gath- 
ering facts by which to establish the proposition that high license is a better 
remedy. 



